Williams Brothers Coal Company, Incorporated

Plain-English summary

Williams Brothers operated the No. 3 Mine, where MSHA cited a Caterpillar front-end loader because one front headlight and two rear taillights were inoperable. Judge Jerold Feldman found that the loader still had at least two operational lights on both ends, which satisfied 30 C.F.R. § 77.1605(d). He vacated Citation No. 3810327 and dismissed the civil penalty proceeding. No penalty was assessed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 77.1605(d).
• Outcome: Citation No. 3810327 was vacated and the civil penalty proceeding was dismissed.
• Key point: The standard required lights on both ends, and the loader had enough operational lights to satisfy that requirement even though other installed lights were inoperable.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 92-752
Petitioner : A.C. No. 15-16666-03512
v. :
: No. 3 Mine
WILLIAMS BROTHERS COAL :
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, :
Respondent :

                        DECISION

Appearances: Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, Nashville, Tennessee
for Petitioner;
Hufford Williams, Vice President, Williams Brothers
Company, Incorporated, pro se,
for Respondent.

Before: Judge Feldman

 In this proceeding the Secretary seeks to impose a civil

penalty on the respondent for an alleged non-significant and
substantial violation of the mandatory safety standard in Section
77.1605(d), 30 C.F.R. 77.1605(d).(Footnote 1) Pursuant to
notice, an evidentiary hearing was held in Prestonsburg,
Kentucky, wherein Clifford Crum testified on behalf of the
Secretary and Hufford Williams testified for the respondent. The
parties stipulated to my jurisdiction in this matter and waived
the filing of post-hearing briefs. At the culmination of the
hearing, I issued a bench decision vacating the citation in issue
and dismissing this case. This decision formalizes my bench
ruling.

1 Section 77.1605(d) provides: "Mobile equipment shall be
provided with audible warning devices. Lights shall be provided
on both ends when required." The subject front-end loader was
equipped with the requisite audible warning system. (Tr.46).

 The dispositive facts in this matter are not in dispute.

On March 23, 1992, Mine Safety Inspector Clifford Crum issued
Citation No. 3810327 for an alleged violation of Section
77.1605(d). The citation was based upon one inoperable right
lower front headlight and two inoperable rear taillights on the
respondent's Caterpillar front-end loader, Model No. 980B,
located on the surface of the respondent's underground No. 3
Mine. (Footnote 2) It is undisputed that the front-end loader had
three operational headlights on the front and two operational
headlights on the rear. It is also undisputed that two
operational headlights on the front and two operational
headlights on the rear satisfy the requirements of Section
77.1605(d). (Tr. 31-32). Inspector Crum testified however, that
the respondent was cited under the theory that all equipment on a
piece of machinery must be operational. (Tr. 20-21). In this
regard, Crum considered the violation to have been abated when
the respondent replaced the front headlight and removed the
inoperable taillights. (Tr. 19-20). At the hearing, I issued the
following bench decision which is edited with non-substantive
changes:

2 The loader is only used on the surface to load stockpiled coal
into dump trucks. It travels approximately 50 to 60 feet during
the loading process. It is used only during the day shift from
approximately 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. (Tr 41-43).

 The issue is whether Section 77.1605(d) has been
 violated. This section requires loading and haulage
 equipment to have lights on both ends. The operable
 part of this section is lights in the plural sense.

 In issue is the condition of the front and rear of this
 front-end loader. Starting with the front, the
 equipment has a standard two light operational mode
 with two additional headlights that can be added as an
 option.

 The undisputed testimony indicates that three of the
 four front headlights were operational. Mr. Crum's
 testimony indicates that if only two headlights were
 operational and there were only two headlights
 installed on the vehicle, there would be no violation.
 However, we have the anomalous situation of a citation
 issued for three operational headlights where only two
 headlights are required.

 My view of Section 77.1605(d) is that if two lights are
 sufficient, certainly three lights are sufficient.
 Although it would have been preferable to have the
 fourth light operational, I find that the three
 operational headlights satisfied Section 77.1605(d)
 with regard to the front of the loader.

 Turning to the rear end of the loader, the testimony
 reflects two operational headlights. What were not
 operational were two taillights. Mr. Crum testified
 that removal of these inoperable taillights abated the
 alleged violation with respect to the rear of the vehicle. I am
 hard pressed to conclude that there's been a violation
 with regard to the rear because the taillights were inoperable if
 removing the taillights abates the situation.

  Therefore, I conclude that both the front and rear of
  the loader satisfied the requirements as intended under
  Section 77.1605(d) in that headlights were provided on
  both ends. I am hereby vacating the citation and
  dismissing the case. (See Tr. 56-58).

                           ORDER

 In view of the above, Citation No. 3810327 IS VACATED and

this civil penalty proceeding IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

                               Jerold Feldman
                               Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville, TN
37215 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Hufford Williams, Williams Brothers Coal Co., Inc., 415 Card
Mountain Road, Mouthcard, KY 41548 (Certified Mail)

vmy