MacH Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor Mine Safety & Health Administration, 728 F.3d 643

Mach Mining operates an underground longwall coal mine and submitted a mine‑specific ventilation plan for Panel 3 that MSHA (district manager) refused to approve after ~8 months of negotiations.
MSHA issued two "technical violation" citations when Mach indicated it would operate without an approved plan to obtain review before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission).
An ALJ heard the contested citations, applied an arbitrary-and-capricious (abuse‑of‑discretion) standard to the Secretary’s refusal to approve the plan, and excluded evidence not previously presented to the district manager.
A divided Commission majority affirmed the ALJ, holding that secretarial denials of ventilation plans are reviewed deferentially (abuse of discretion); dissenters would apply de novo/preponderance review.
Mach petitioned for review in the Seventh Circuit, arguing it was entitled to de novo review under the APA/§ 554 and that the ALJ improperly excluded evidence and made unsupported factual findings.
The Seventh Circuit denied the petition: it held the deferential standard was correct as a matter of statutory structure/history and upheld the Commission’s factual and evidentiary rulings (substantial evidence/abuse of discretion review).

Issue	Mach’s Argument	Secretary’s Argument	Held
Standard of review for MSHA’s refusal to approve a mine‑specific ventilation plan	APA §554 requires de novo hearing and preponderance standard before the Commission/ALJ	Plan‑approval is a discretionary, plan‑setting function of the Secretary; denial is reviewable only for abuse of discretion	Abuse of discretion (arbitrary and capricious) review applies
Admissibility of evidence not presented to district manager during negotiations	ALJ should admit and consider evidence de novo to vindicate operator’s right to full hearing	Evidence not presented earlier properly excluded to preserve the plan‑approval negotiation process and MSHA’s role	ALJ did not abuse discretion in excluding or limiting evidence not previously presented
Burden of proof regarding suitability of operator’s plan	Secretary must prove by preponderance that operator’s plan is unsuitable and Secretary’s measures are suitable	Secretary’s discretionary approval role warrants deference; no shift to de novo burden allocation	No de novo burden shift; lower, deferential review appropriate
Sufficiency of the record / substantial evidence supporting MSHA’s denial	ALJ would have reached different result under de novo review; record insufficient as reviewed	District manager’s decision and Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Commission’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence; petition denied

Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 450 U.S. 91 (standard of proof in APA §554 adjudications is preponderance)
Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144 (deference to agency interpretation where agency has policymaking/enforcement role)
Zeigler Coal Co. v. Kleppe, 536 F.2d 398 (ventilation plans developed by operator and approved by agency; discusses impasse resolution)
Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 920 F.2d 960 (deference to Secretary in altering mandatory standards)
Sec'y of Labor v. Excel Mining, LLC, 334 F.3d 1 (Secretary's interpretive judgments entitled to deference)
Lone Mountain Processing, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 709 F.3d 1161 (agency should explain departures from precedent)