Ezel / Agency Decisions / PENN 90-208-R

Beth Energy Mines, Inc. (ALJ decision, August 14, 1990)

Beth Energy Mines, Inc. (FMSHRC PENN 90-208-R): Continuance denied and discovery ordered

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
PENN 90-208-R
Decided
August 14, 1990
Presiding judge
George A. Koutras
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-16
Cited standards
30 C.F.R. § 75.511 29 C.F.R. § 2700.55 29 C.F.R. § 2700.57
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1990 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 1990
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.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This ruling denied a continuance and directed discovery before a merits hearing. The case was still pending in whole or in part, so this ruling did not finally dispose of it under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). 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

Beth Energy Mines contested an S&S citation alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.511 involving the qualifications needed to uncouple deenergized high-voltage cable. The Secretary requested a continuance while a companion civil-penalty proceeding was filed, but Beth Energy objected to delaying the case. Judge George A. Koutras denied the continuance, ordered the respondent to answer discovery requests on time, and stated that a merits hearing would likely occur after January 1991.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 C.F.R. § 75.511; 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.55 and 2700.57
  • Outcome: The motion for a continuance was denied, and timely discovery responses were ordered.
  • Key point: The contest was allowed to proceed while the related civil-penalty case was being filed.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
BETH ENERGY MINES V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19900814
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1747
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges

BETH ENERGY MINES, INC., CONTEST PROCEEDING CONTESTANT Docket No. PENN 90-208-R v. Citation No. 3099484; 6/20/90

SECRETARY OF LABOR, Mine No. 84
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH Mine ID No. 36-00958 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), RESPONDENT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

This proceeding concerns a Notice of Contest filed by the contestant pursuant to section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, challenging a section 104(a) "S&S" Citation No. 3099484, charging it with an alleged violation of mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.511. The contestant has initiated discovery pursuant to Commission Rules 55 and 57, 29 C.F.R. 2700.55 and 2700.57, and has filed interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the respondent.

The respondent has filed an answer and a motion for a continuance pending the filing of its companion civil penalty assessment proceeding. By letter dated July 31, 1990, and received on August 2, 1990, the contestant objects to any continuance of the matter. In support of its objection, the contestant states that while it has not requested an expedited hearing, it believes that "the matter should move forward in the normal course without delay" because the issue presented by its contest (the necessary qualifications for a miner to uncouple deenergized high voltage cable) arises with some frequency and that a delay in resolving this issue would be inappropriate. The respondent has not responded to the contestant's objections for a continuance.

ORDER

The respondent's motion for a continuance IS DENIED, and the matter will be scheduled for a hearing on the merits in the near future. However, in view of the presiding judge's current trial docket, a hearing is not likely to be scheduled until sometime after January, 1991. Under the circumstances, the respondent

Page 3

~1748
should have ample time to file its civil penalty proceeding and file a request for a consolidation of the cases. In the meantime, the respondent IS ORDERED to timely respond to the contestant's discovery requests.

George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace