Alabama By-Products Corporation (ALJ decision, August 8, 1986)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought a civil penalty against Alabama By-Products Corporation for an alleged violation of its roof control plan at the Mary Lee No. 1 Mine. Before the scheduled hearing, MSHA vacated the citation after concluding that the plan did not cover the situation in question. The Secretary moved to dismiss the penalty case and said MSHA and the operator were reviewing the roof control plan. Judge Paul Merlin excused further appearances and dismissed the proceeding. The order imposes no penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: No specific regulation is identified; the withdrawn citation concerned the mine's roof control plan.
• Outcome: Penalty proceeding dismissed after MSHA vacated its citation; no penalty.
• Key point: MSHA concluded that the cited roof control plan did not cover the situation alleged in the citation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
AUG 8 1986
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SE 86-46 Petitioner : A. C. No. 01-00515-03632 :
v. : Mary Lee No. 1 Mine
:

ALABAMA BY-PRODUCTS CORP., :
Respondent :

DECISION
Appearances:_ William Lawson, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Birmingham, Alabama, for Petitioner.
Before: Judge Merlin
This case is a petition for the assessment of a civil penalty filed by the Secretary against Alabama By-Products Corporation. By Notice of Hearing dated July 22, 1986, the hearing was set for August 6, 1986, in Birmingham.
On August 5, 1986, at the conclusion of hearings on cases set for that day, the Solicitor asked to be heard with respect to this case. The Solicitor advised on the record that the citation which was the subject of the pen- alty assessment had been vacated by MSHA. He moved to dis- miss, explaining that the citation had been issued for a violation of the operator's roof control plan but that upon further consideration MSHA had concluded that the plan did not cover the situation in question. Upon inquiry from the bench, the Solicitor gave assurances that both the operator and MSHA were now reviewing the roof control plan in light of this case.
Finally, the Solicitor advised that, if required, operator's counsel would appear the following morning as had been scheduled. However, in light of the Solicitor's repre- sentations, further appearances by counsel were excused and additional hearing was deemed unnecessary.
In light of the foregoing, this case is Dismissed.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1216

Distribution:
William Lawson, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Suite 201, 2015 Second Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203 (Certified Mail) David M. Smith, Esq., Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale, P.C., 12th Floor, Watts Building, Birmingham, AL 35203 (Certified Mail)