Golden Oak Mining Company, L.P.

Plain-English summary

Golden Oak Mining sought review of an ALJ decision concerning a surface bathing facility at its underground coal mine. The ALJ had found a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.1712-1 and concluded that MSHA did not abuse its discretion in denying a waiver. Golden Oak reported that MSHA later granted the waiver and moved to withdraw its petition for discretionary review, with the Secretary's support. The Commission granted the motion, vacated its direction for review, and dismissed the proceeding as moot.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.1712-1
• Outcome: The Commission's direction for review was vacated and the proceeding was dismissed.
• Key point: A Commission review proceeding may be dismissed as moot after MSHA grants the requested waiver.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
GOLDEN OAK MINING V. MSHA
DDATE:
19900920
TTEXT:

          FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.
                          September 20, 1990

GOLDEN OAK MINING COMPANY, L.P.

 v.                Docket No. KENT 90-185-R

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

BEFORE: Backley, Acting Chairman; Doyle and Nelson, Commissioners

               ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

 In this contest proceeding pending on review, arising under the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. (1988)
("Mine Act"), counsel for petitioner Golden Oak Mining Company, L.P.
("Golden Oak") has filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Petition for
Discretionary Review. Counsel for the Secretary of Labor has filed a
Response indicating that the Secretary "supports" Golden Oak's motion.
In the proceeding below, Commission Administrative Law Judge James A.
Broderick concluded that Golden Oak had violated 30 C.F.R. 75.1712-1 by
not providing a surface bathing facility at its underground coal mine, and
that the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration
("MSHA") had not abused its discretion in denying Golden Oak's request for
a waiver of the standard's requirements. 12 FMSHRC 1360 (June 1990)(ALJ).
In its present motion, Golden Oak states that MSHA has now granted it a
waiver of the bathing facility requirements and that its contest is "moot."
Upon consideration of Golden Oak's motion and the Secretary's response, we
conclude that adequate reasons have been presented for dismissal of this
proceeding and we grant the motion. See generally, e.g., Youghiogheny &
Ohio Coal Co., 7 FMSHRC 200, 203 (February 1985).

Page 2

~1759
Accordingly, the Commission's direction for review is vacated and
this proceeding is dismissed. */

Distribution

Teresa Taylor, Esq.
Cook Law Office
118 Hays Street
P.0. Drawer 909
Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858

Dennis D. Clark, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington. Virginia 22203

Administrative Law Judge James A. Broderick
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

*/ Pursuant to section 113(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 823(c), we have
designated ourselves as a panel of the three Commissioners to exercise the
powers of the Commission in this matter.