Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Quarto Mining Company, Nacco Mining Company, and The North American Coal Corporation (Commission decision, September 23, 1981)

Plain-English summary

Several mine operators and MSHA were before the Commission over whether an ALJ correctly found a common dust control plan provision too vague to enforce. After the Commission directed review, the operators adopted replacement dust control provisions with the Secretary's approval. The Commission said the cases no longer raised a substantial question of law, policy, or discretion. It vacated its directions for review without deciding whether the original provisions were enforceable. The order does not assess penalties or change the underlying ALJ rulings.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 C.F.R. § 75.316, cited for the operators' dust control plans.
• Outcome: Directions for review vacated in the listed cases; no merits ruling or penalty in this order.
• Key point: Approved replacement plan language removed the substantial review question concerning the old provision.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. QUARTO, NACCO MINING AND THE NORTH AMERICAN COAL DDATE: 19810923 TTEXT: FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. September 23, 1981 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH Docket Nos. LAKE 79-119
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
LAKE 80-190
LAKE 80-209
v. LAKE 80-212
LAKE 80-246
QUARTO MINING COMPANY,
LAKE 80-25
NACCO MINING COMPANY,)
LAKE 80-252
THE NORTH AMERICAN COAL
LAKE 80-182
CORPORATION,

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

v.

THE NORTH AMERICAN COAL Docket No. LAKE 80-276 CORPORATION,

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

v.

NACCO MINING COMPANY, Docket No. LAKE 80-290

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

v.

QUARTO MINING COMPANY Docket Nos. LAKE 80-311 LAKE 80-360
 LAKE 80-384
LAKE 80-385

ORDER
The issue in each of the above-captioned cases is the same: whether the administrative law judge correctly held that a provision of the operator's dust control plan, adopted pursuant to 30 C.F.R.
$75.316, is too vague to bc enforced. The dust control provisions at issue in these cases are identical. Subsequent to our directing these cases for review.
~2052
each of the operators adopted, with the Secretary's approval, a new dust provision replacing the dust control provision at issue here. As a result of that change, we no longer believe that these cases present a substantial question of law, policy or discretion. Accordingly, the directions for review in the above-captioned cases are vacated.
~2053
Distribution
Michael McCord, Esq.
Nancy S. Hyde, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Timothy Biddle, Esq.
John T. Scott, III, Esq.
Crowell & Moring
1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Administrative Law Judge Paul Merlin
FMSHRC
5203 Leesburg Pike, 1Oth Floor
Falls Church, Virginia 22041