Ezel / Agency Decisions / penn-2000-21-r-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket PENN 2000-21-R, PENN 2000-22-R Decided February 1, 2000 Settled Judge Jerold Feldman

Rosebud Mining Company

Rosebud Mining Company (FMSHRC PENN 2000-21-R, PENN 2000-22-R): Roof-bolter canopy settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2000 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2000
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Rosebud Mining Company contested two citations involving canopies on Long-Airdox roof bolting machines at the Josephine No. 3 low-seam coal mine. MSHA alleged that the canopies did not protect operators from roof or rib falls when they were at the controls, and characterized both conditions as significant and substantial. The parties settled after the hearing began: Rosebud agreed to extend the canopies and move the drill controls, while MSHA extended abatement and agreed not to impose civil penalties. Judge Jerold Feldman approved the settlement, granted withdrawal of both contests, and dismissed the two proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. § 75.1710-1(a)
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, Rosebud's withdrawal of both contests was granted, and both proceedings were dismissed. No civil penalty was imposed.
  • Key point: The settlement required physical canopy and control modifications to improve roof and rib protection for roof bolter operators.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)


[DOCID: f:pn200021.wais]

ROSEBUD MINING COMPANY
February 1, 2000
PENN 2000-21-R

    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

           OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                  2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
                   5203 LEESBURG PIKE
              FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA  22041

                    February 1, 2000

ROSEBUD MINING COMPANY, : CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
Contestant :
v. : Docket No. PENN 2000-21-R
: Citation No. 7042925; 10/5/99
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : Docket No. PENN 2000-22-R
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Citation No. 7042926; 10/5/99
Respondent :
: Josephine No. 3
: Mine ID 36-08719

                         DECISION

Appearances: Joseph A. Yuhas, Esq., Northern Cambria,
Pennsylvania, for the Contestant;
Pam E. DiFillippo, Esq., Merna Butkovitz, Esq.,
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Petitioner.

Before: Judge Feldman

 Before  me for consideration is a  notice  of  contest  with

respect to Citation Nos. 7042925 and 7042926 filed by Rosebud
Mining Company (Rosebud) against the Secretary of Labor (the
Secretary) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
pursuant to section 105 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
of 1977 (the Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. � 815. Rosebud challenges the
propriety of the subject citations that allege violations of the
mandatory safety standard in section 75.1710-1(a), 30 C.F.R.
� 75.1710-1(a).[1]

 The  citations  were  issued because the tram station canopy

and the roof bolting station canopy installed on the Long-Airdox
roof bolting machines, serial numbers 62-873 and 62-874, model
LRB-15-AR, operating in low seam coal in the first north butt
002-0 working section, allegedly were not protecting certain
operators from falls of the roof/ribs when the operators were at
the operating controls. The Secretary characterized the cited
conditions as significant and substantial (S&S) in nature.

 The operators of the cited Long-Airdox roof bolting machines

remain under supported roof at all times, even when under the
cited canopies. As a general proposition, the canopies in
question were adequate to protect roof bolt operators of average
build. However, portions of the bodies of stouter roof bolt
operators extended beyond the perimeters of the canopies.
Consequently, the degree of negligence attributable to Rosebud
for the cited violative conditions was considered to be low
because the alleged violations were not obvious unless a
physically larger roof bolter operator was operating the machine.

 The Secretary  concedes  that her mandatory safety standards

do not prohibit miners from traversing, without the protection of
any canopies, the vicinity of the supported roof areas where the
cited roof bolting machines were operating. In fact these areas
are traversed on a daily basis during pre-shift and on-shift
examinations.

 Rosebud's contest  is  based on its assertion that the Long-

Airdox model LRB-15-AR roof bolting machines have been in
operation for more than 15 years without incident. Rosebud is
reluctant to install extensions on the canopies because it
believes larger canopies extending beyond the frame of the roof
bolting machines will hamper the machines' maneuverability in low
seam coal mining.

 A  hearing  in  these  contest proceedings was conducted  in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on December 16, 1999. Upon completion
of the Secretary's direct case, a settlement conference was
conducted with the parties' counsel. After conferring with their
clients, counsel advised that they had reached a settlement
agreement. The terms of their agreement was presented and
approved on the record. (Tr. 227-50). This decision formalizes
the settlement terms.

 Rosebud  has agreed to withdraw its notices of contests  for

Citation Nos. 7042925 and 7042926. In addition, on or before
March 16, 2000, Rosebud will install extended tram station
canopies and roof bolting station canopies on the cited Long-
Airdox roof bolting machines. Specifically, the tram station
canopy will be extended by approximately 10 inches, and the roof
bolting station canopy will be extended by approximately 9
inches. In addition, the drill controls on both machines will be
moved forward approximately 10 inches to afford the operator with
more overhead protection from the canopy.

 In return, MSHA has agreed to extend  the  abatement  period

for the subject citations until March 16, 2000. In addition, the
Secretary has agreed not to impose any civil penalty for these
citations. Finally, MSHA reserves the right to evaluate these
modifications to ensure that they provide adequate protection.

FOOTNOTES

 [1]  Section 75.1710-1(a) provides, in  pertinent part, that

"canopies . . . [shall be] installed in such a manner that when
the operator is at the operating controls of [self-propelled
face] equipment he shall be protected from falls of roof, face,
or rib, or from rib and face rolls."

                          ORDER

 In  view  of the above, the contestant's withdrawal  of  its

notices of contest for
Citation Nos. 7042925 and 7042926 IS GRANTED and the terms of the
settlement agreement specified above ARE APPROVED. Accordingly,
the contest proceedings in Docket Nos. PENN 2000-21-R and PENN
2000-22-R ARE DISMISSED.

                               Jerold Feldman
                               Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Joseph A. Yuhas, Esq., P.O. Box 1025, Northern Cambria, PA 15714
(Certified Mail)

Pam E. DeFillippo, Esq. Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, Gateway Bldg.,
Rm. 14480, 3535 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Certified
Mail)

/mh

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2000, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.