Peter White Coal Mining Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) (Commission decision, May 2, 1979)

Plain-English summary

Peter White Coal sought immediate review of several abated mine safety citations that carried special findings under Mine Act section 104(e). A judge had dismissed the contests because the Secretary had not yet proposed penalties. Applying its Energy Fuels ruling, the Commission held that an operator may contest the alleged violations before penalties are proposed, including when the citations carry section 104(e) findings. It reversed the dismissals and remanded the cases. Commissioner Lawson dissented, and this decision assessed no penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: Mine Act sections 104(a) and 104(e), 30 U.S.C. § 814(a), (e).
• Outcome: Dismissals reversed and citation contests remanded. No penalties assessed.
• Key point: The section 104(e) findings could lead to a withdrawal order before a penalty proposal, supporting immediate review of the citations.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
PETER WHITE COAL V. MSHA
DDATE:
19790502
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. May 2, 1979
PETER WHITE COAL MINING
Docket Nos. H0PE 78-374-375
CORPORATION,
394-402, 431-432,
v. 434-443, 445, 449-
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
450, 452-453, 376-
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
382, 390-393, 495-
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
496, 498, 509, 535-
544, 544-558, 594
DECISION
Peter White Coal Mining Corporation seeks review of citations issued to it under section 104(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq. (1978) ["the 1977 Act"]. The citations alleged violations of various mine safety and health standards, and included special findings, made under section 104(e) of the 1977 Act, that the alleged violation "could have significantly and substantially contributed to the cause and effect of ... mine health or safety hazards." The alleged violations have been abated. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Peter White's applications for review on the ground that the citations were not reviewable until after the Secretary proposed penalties. The Commission granted Peter White's petitions for discretionary review. We reverse and remand. The issue in these cases is whether an operator served with a citation for a violation that has been abated may immediately contest the allegation of violation in the citation. In Energy Fuels Corp., No. DENV 78-410 (May 1, 1979), we fully examined that question and answered it in the affirmative. See also, Helvetia Coal Co., No. PITT 78-322 (May 1, 1979). We viewed the insertion by a congressional conference committee of the phrase "or citation" into section 105(d) of the 1977 Act to have been most likely intended to permit an operator to immediately contest a citation. We also weighed the interests of the persons and agencies affected by this controversy, and we concluded that a fair balance between those interests could be struck in favor of permitting an operator to immediately contest citations. Our analysis of the interests of the operator rested partially on the fact that the citation in Energy Fuels contained special findings under section 104(d) of the 1977 Act, and thus exposed the operator to a possible withdrawal order before a

--- Page 2

penalty could be proposed. Although the citations here have special findings under section 104(e), rather than section 104(d),
~328
the Possible consequences of special findings under both sections are similar enough that the cases should be treated the same for this purpose. As with a citation with special findings under section 104(d), such as the citation in Energy Fuels, a withdrawal order may be issued before a penalty is proposed. We also observe that the miners will not be adversely affected if we permit the operator to immediately contest the citations, and that the Secretary and the Commission may relieve possible administrative burdens through the techniques we noted in Energy Fuels. Accordingly, the judges' decisions are reversed. The cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
~329
Commissioner Lawson, dissenting:
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Energy Fuels Corp., No. DENV 78-410, I would deny immediate review of all citations for which the alleged violation has been abated.