Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Itmann Coal Company (Commission decision, July 16, 1982)

Plain-English summary

An administrative law judge found that Itmann Coal Company failed to give prompt notice of a methane ignition and failed to preserve evidence for its investigation under the 1969 Coal Act. The Commission upheld both violations and the $7,500 penalty assessed for each. It rejected Itmann's argument that an acquittal and dismissal of related criminal charges barred the civil case, explaining that the proceedings concerned different allegations and used different burdens of proof. The Commission also held that immediate notice was part of the statutory accident reporting duty and found no basis to reduce the penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 C.F.R. §§ 80.10 and 80.11 (1975), accident reporting and evidence preservation under the 1969 Coal Act.
• Outcome: Two violations and two $7,500 penalties affirmed; $15,000 total.
• Key point: Related criminal proceedings did not bar the civil penalty case, and the accident notification duty required prompt notice.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. ITMANN COAL
DDATE:
19820716
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. July 16, 1982 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v. Docket No. HOPE 76-197-P
IBMA No. 77-58
ITMANN COAL COMPANY

DECISION
This case arose under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq. (1976)(amended 1977)("the Coal Act").1/ The administrative law judge concluded that Itmann Coal Company committed two violations of section 103(e) of the Coal Act and regulations implementing that section (30 C.F.R. $$ 80.10 and .11 (1975)). The judge assessed a penalty of $7,500 for each violation. Itmann appealed the judge's decision and argues that in both instances the judge erred in finding violations. In the alternative, Itmann argues that proper application of the gravity and negligence penalty assessment criteria requires penalties "substantially less" than those assessed by the judge. We have reviewed the judge's decision and the record in this case in view of the arguments presented by Itmann on appeal. Based on our review, we conclude that the judge's findings of two violations of section 103(e) of the Coal Act area supported by the evidence. To the extent that the judge made credibility findings to resolve conflicting testimony, we find no basis for disturbing those findings. We also find that the judge correctly ruled upon the questions of law raised by the operator. In particular, we agree that the acquittal and dismissal of criminal charges brought against Itmann and several of its employees do not bar the present civil action. The criminal proceedings involved charges that the defendants conspired "to impede the due and proper administration of law" by fabricating a story about the 1/ On March 8, 1978, this case was pending on appeal before the Department of Interior's Board of Mine Operations Appeals. Accordingly, it is before the Commission for disposition. 30 U.S.C.
$ 961 (Supp. IV 1980). The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has been substituted for its predecessor agency, the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA).
~1230
methane ignition at issue and by giving false testimony during the investigation thereof, and that Itmann willfully violated mandatory safety and health standards. The violations of the Coal Act at issue in the instant civil proceeding concern Itmann's failure to properly notify the Secretary of an accident and to prevent the destruction of evidence that would assist in the investigation of the accident. Apart from the differences in the nature of the allegations at issue in the criminal and civil proceedings, different standards of proof apply, i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, we agree with the judge that the present civil proceedings are not barred. United States v. Nat'l Assoc. of Real Estate Bds., 339 U.S. 485, 94 L.Ed 1007, 70 S.Ct. 711 (1950). We also affirm the judge's conclusion that a civil penalty could be assessed for the failure to immediately notify MESA of the ignition. As the Board of Mine Operations Appeals held: "[T]he element of immediacy is to be construed as an integral part of the notification and preservation of evidence obligation of section 103(e) [of the Coal Act]." U.S. Steel Corp., 8 IBMA 230, 236-37 (1977). Therefore, by failing to comply with 30 C.F.R. $ 80.11 (1975), Itmann violated section 103(e) of the Coal Act and a penalty must be assessed for this violation. 2/ Finally, based on our review of the record, and in light of the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the penalties assessed by the judge reflect consideration of the statutory penalty criteria, are appropriate for the violations and should not be disturbed. Accordingly, the decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. A. E. Lawson, Commissioner 2/ Thus, we need not decide whether section 80.11 was, in and of itself, a mandatory safety and health standard.
~1231
Distribution
Timothy M. Biddle, Esq.
Crowell & Moring
1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Michael McCord, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Administrative Law Judge William Fauver
Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Commission
5203 Leesburg Pike, lOth Floor
Falls Church, Virginia 22041