Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Coal Company

Plain-English summary

The Commission had previously affirmed part of an administrative law judge's decision, reversed another part, and remanded the question of whether a disputed ventilation-plan provision was suitable for the mines' conditions. Peabody Coal asked the Commission to reconsider and to stay the earlier decision, arguing that the Secretary should also have to prove that Peabody's previously approved ventilation plans were no longer suitable. The Secretary did not object to carrying that burden in this case. The Commission denied the petition because the remand judge should resolve those issues first.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: None stated in the release.
• Outcome: The petition for reconsideration and stay was denied, leaving the suitability issues for resolution by the administrative law judge on remand.
• Key point: The Commission left the burden and suitability questions for the administrative law judge to resolve first on remand.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

                            April 30, 1993

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :
:
v. : Docket Nos. KENT 91-179-R
: KENT 91-185-R
PEABODY COAL COMPANY :

                                 ORDER

  The Commission issued a decision in this matter on March 25, 1993,

affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the administrative law
judge and remanding to the judge the issue of whether a disputed ventilation
plan provision was "suitable" to the conditions of the mines in question.
15 FMSHRC 381, 389 (March 1993). The Commission has subsequently received
from Peabody Coal Company ("Peabody") a Petition For Reconsideration and For
Stay Of Decision Pending Reconsideration ("Petition"). The Commission also
has received from the Secretary of Labor a Response To Petition For
Reconsideration ("Response").

  All Commissioners have considered Peabody's Petition and the Secretary's

Response and have agreed unanimously that the Chairman may issue an order
setting forth their disposition of the Petition.

  The Commission held that the Secretary bears the general burden of

proving that the disputed plan provision was suitable to the mines in
question. 15 FMSHRC at 388. Peabody's Petition requests the Commission to
clarify that the Secretary bears the burden of proving not only that the
disputed plan provision was suitable but also that Peabody's previously
approved ventilation plans were no longer suitable. Petition at 4-7. The
Secretary's Response states that, in the present case, where he seeks to have
Peabody make changes in previously approved plans, he has no objection to
bearing a burden of proving both the non-suitability of those plans and the
suitability of the disputed plan provision. Response at 1 & n.1, 3.

  Upon consideration of the Petition and Response, the Commissioners have

determined unanimously that the issues raised in the Petition are best
resolved in the first instance by the administrative law judge on remand.
Accordingly, the Petition is denied.

                                For the Commission:


                                Arlene Holen
                                Chairman