Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission | Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Date Updated

09/27/2024

No.	Case Name Docket No.	Date When Review was Granted	Description of the Case
1	Consol PA Coal Co. PENN 2021-0084	7/18/22	Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a missing keeper pin violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(a), that the violation was S&S, and that the violation was caused by low negligence; and whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator’s permissibility violation was S&S.
2	County Line Stone Co. YORK 2022-0003	8/5/22	Whether the Judge erred in denying motions to settle based on his conclusion that the Secretary had failed to provide sufficient information to support the vacating of penalties.
3	Greenbrier Minerals, LLC WEVA 2022-0403	12/6/22	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.
4	Bluestone Oil Corp. WEVA 2022-0176, 2022-0350	12/7/22	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.
5	Genesis Alkali, LLC WEST 2022-0189, 2022-0267, 2022-0250	12/12/22	Whether the Judge abused her discretion in denying the Nov. 29, 2022, motions to approve settlement.
6	Rulon Harper Constr., Inc., WEST 2022-0249, 2022-0250	12/15/22	(1) Whether the Judge abused her discretion in denying the motions to approve settlement. (2) 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.
7	Canyon Fuel Co. and Tanner, emp. by Canyon Fuel Co. WEST 2021-188, et al.	06/30/23	(1) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator had violated 30 C.F.R. § 50.10(b), that the violation was S&S and caused by unwarrantable failure; (2) whether the Judge erred in finding Allred and Cooper individually liable under section 110(c) for the operator’s violation of section 50.10(b); (2) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.202(a); (3) whether the Judge erred in holding that Order No. 8541991 was not duplicative of Citation No. 8541894.
8	Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc. CENT 2022-0010	6/30/23	Whether a stone finishing plant constitutes a “mine” under section 3(h)(1)(c) of the Mine Act?
9	Morton Salt, Inc. CENT 2022-0176	8/2/23	Whether the Judge erred in concluding that violations of 30 C.F.R. §§ 57.3200 and 57.11053(c) were not significant and substantial.
10	Geneva Rock Products, Inc. WEST 2022-0097	12/14/23	Whether the Judge abused his discretion when he ordered a stay of the case for an indefinite duration.
11	Matney v. Rockwell Mining, LLC WEVA 2023-0126	1/17/24	Whether the Judge erred in sustaining a section 105(c)(3) complaint based on the operator’s alleged Part 90 violations.
12	Prairie State Generating Company, LLC	4/11/24	Whether the Judge erred in finding the violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.517 was significant and substantial.
13	Ben’s Creek Operations WV, LLC	4/16/24	(1)Whether the Secretary lacks standing to challenge the Judge’s order granting a settlement motion; (2) Whether the Judge erred in granting a settlement motion.
14	Nally & Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.	5/14/24	Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s finding that a tree was not a hazardous condition that had to be reported and corrected within the meaning of 30 C.F.R. § 77.1713(a).
15	SOL o/b/o Baumann v. Moseneca Manufacturer, LLC d/b/a American Tripoli	6/18/24	Whether the Judge’s decision is contrary to law regarding the meanings and application of the “discrimination” and “interference” provisions in section 105(c) complaints, and whether the provisions are ambiguous and deserving of deference to the Secretary’s interpretation.
16	Mallery v. El Segundo Coal Co.	7/12/24	Whether the Judge erred in finding no adverse action; (2) Whether the Judge erred in issuing orders to show cause
17	Grimes Rock, Inc.,	9/3/24	Whether the Judge erred in affirming two citations and an order that were issued after the operator failed to make temporary reinstatement payments following a Judge’s order of enforcement.
18	Cargill Inc.,	9/26/24	(1) Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s determination that the operator did not violate 30 C.F.R. § 57.11051(a); (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that, even if a violation had been established, a lack of notice did not support the assessment of a penalty.

No.

Case Name

Docket No.

Date When Review was Granted

Description of the Case

Consol PA Coal Co.

PENN 2021-0084

7/18/22

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a missing keeper pin violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(a), that the violation was S&S, and that the violation was caused by low negligence; and whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator’s permissibility violation was S&S.

County Line Stone Co.

YORK 2022-0003

8/5/22

Whether the Judge erred in denying motions to settle based on his conclusion that the Secretary had failed to provide sufficient information to support the vacating of penalties.

Greenbrier Minerals, LLC

WEVA 2022-0403

12/6/22

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.

Bluestone Oil Corp.

WEVA 2022-0176, 2022-0350

12/7/22

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.

Genesis Alkali, LLC

WEST 2022-0189, 2022-0267, 2022-0250

12/12/22

Whether the Judge abused her discretion in denying the Nov. 29, 2022, motions to approve settlement.

Rulon Harper Constr., Inc.,

WEST 2022-0249, 2022-0250

12/15/22

(1) Whether the Judge abused her discretion in denying the motions to approve settlement. (2) 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.

Canyon Fuel Co. and Tanner, emp. by Canyon Fuel Co.

WEST 2021-188, et al.

06/30/23

(1) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator had violated 30 C.F.R. § 50.10(b), that the violation was S&S and caused by unwarrantable failure; (2) whether the Judge erred in finding Allred and Cooper individually liable under section 110(c) for the operator’s violation of section 50.10(b); (2) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.202(a); (3) whether the Judge erred in holding that Order No. 8541991 was not duplicative of Citation No. 8541894.

Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc.

CENT 2022-0010

6/30/23

Whether a stone finishing plant constitutes a “mine” under section 3(h)(1)(c) of the Mine Act?

Morton Salt, Inc.

CENT 2022-0176

8/2/23

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that violations of 30 C.F.R. §§ 57.3200 and 57.11053(c) were not significant and substantial.

Geneva Rock Products, Inc.

WEST 2022-0097

12/14/23

Whether the Judge abused his discretion when he ordered a stay of the case for an indefinite duration.

Matney v. Rockwell Mining, LLC

WEVA 2023-0126

1/17/24

Whether the Judge erred in sustaining a section 105(c)(3) complaint based on the operator’s alleged Part 90 violations.

Prairie State Generating Company, LLC

4/11/24

Whether the Judge erred in finding the violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.517 was significant and substantial.

Ben’s Creek Operations WV, LLC

4/16/24

(1)Whether the Secretary lacks standing to challenge the Judge’s order granting a settlement motion; (2) Whether the Judge erred in granting a settlement motion.

Nally & Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.

5/14/24

Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s finding that a tree was not a hazardous condition that had to be reported and corrected within the meaning of 30 C.F.R. § 77.1713(a).

SOL o/b/o Baumann v. Moseneca Manufacturer, LLC d/b/a American Tripoli

6/18/24

Whether the Judge’s decision is contrary to law regarding the meanings and application of the “discrimination” and “interference” provisions in section 105(c) complaints, and whether the provisions are ambiguous and deserving of deference to the Secretary’s interpretation.

Mallery v. El Segundo Coal Co.

7/12/24

Whether the Judge erred in finding no adverse action; (2) Whether the Judge erred in issuing orders to show cause

Grimes Rock, Inc.,

9/3/24

Whether the Judge erred in affirming two citations and an order that were issued after the operator failed to make temporary reinstatement payments following a Judge’s order of enforcement.

Cargill Inc.,

9/26/24

(1) Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s determination that the operator did not violate 30 C.F.R. § 57.11051(a); (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that, even if a violation had been established, a lack of notice did not support the assessment of a penalty.