Dominion Coal Corporation

Plain-English summary

The Secretary asked to modify a citation's expected-injury finding and reduce its penalty from $1,111 to $777.70. Judge Priscilla M. Rae found that the motion supplied no facts supporting either change, despite Commission Rule 31 and prior instructions requiring a factual basis for each settlement term. After the Solicitor's Office did not submit the requested revision, the judge rejected the settlement motion. She ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on the alleged violation, gravity, negligence, and penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)(1)
• Outcome: The settlement motion was rejected and the civil-penalty case was set for a merits hearing.
• Key point: A proposed penalty reduction must include facts supporting the agreed result for each violation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FO#5D.WPD

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

TELEPHONE: 202-434-9958 / FAX: 202-434-9949

October 17, 2012 

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

DOMINION COAL CORPORATION,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. VA 2012-227

A.C. No. 44-07220-000278305

Mine: Mine No. 44

ORDER REJECTING SETTLEMENT MOTION

AND NOTICE OF HEARING

Before:            Judge Rae

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of a civil penalty under section
105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 815(d). The Secretary
filed a motion pursuant to Commission Rule 31, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31, seeking approval of the
proposed settlement.

The Solicitor has requested that Citation No. 8194686 be modified to
reduce the type of injury that could reasonably be expected to occur to “permanently disabling,”
and reduce the penalty from $1,111.00 to $777.70.

The motion submitted by the Solicitor, however, fails to predicate the modifications upon
any factual support. Commission Rule 31(b)(1), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)(1), mandates that the
motion to approve settlement must include “facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the
parties” for each violation. The Arlington Solicitor’s Office has been on notice of the
Commission’s clear instructions to provide a factual basis for each and every settlement. Black
Beauty Coal Company, 34 FMSHRC ___, slip op. (LAKE 2008-327, LAKE 2008-590, & LAKE
2009-2240) (Aug. 20, 2012) (unanimously finding that Commission judges are authorized to
require parties to submit factual support necessary for the proper review of proposed settlements
of contested civil penalties). The Secretary may not continue to act in blatant disregard of the
Mine Act, Commission Rules, and previous orders unless an appeals court overturns the well-established principles set forth in the Commission’s Black Beauty decision.

The settlement documents were filed on October 3, 2012. Immediately thereafter, the
solicitor was sent an email informing him that a revised Motion and Order were needed including
a factual basis for the modifications. No revision has been received.

The Secretary is acting in
direct contravention of my Order as well as recently issued Commission decisions and
obstructing the judge’s authority and responsibility to enforce the intent and purpose of the Mine
Act.

Therefore, the Motion to Approve Settlement is REJECTED and the parties are
ORDERED to appear for a hearing on the merits of the case on November 8, 2012.

NOTICE OF HEARING/

NOTICE OF HEARING SITE

In accordance with Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, the
"Act," 30 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq., this case is set for hearing on November 8, 2012, commencing
at 8:30a.m. The location is:

Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center

One Partnership Circle

Abingdon, VA 24210

Conference Room 228

The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Mine Act and the Commission’s
Procedural Rules addressing the subject, as set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 2700, Subpart G. The issues
to be resolved are whether the Respondent violated the Act and the cited regulatory standards, and
if so, the level of gravity and degree of negligence of those violations which are proved, as well as
the appropriate civil penalty to be imposed.

The parties are reminded to comply with the terms of my Prehearing Order previously issued.
It is further ordered that any party intending to offer exhibits at the hearing shall submit, five (5)
days prior to the commencement of the hearing, a marked copy of all exhibits to the opposing party
and the judge. The Secretary’s exhibits shall be designated “S-#” and Respondent’s exhibits shall
be designated “R-#." Exhibits shall be clearly marked and numbered seriatim. If opposing counsel
has an objection to the admission of any exhibit, they shall state the grounds for the objection in
writing and submit it to the judge and opposing counsel at least three (3) days prior to the
commencement of the hearing.

A list of witnesses (including experts) and a statement as to their expected testimony (and
copy of any report prepared by an expert) shall also be exchanged by the parties with a copy
submitted to the judge five (5) business days prior to the commencement of the hearing.

Any stipulations agreed upon by the parties shall be submitted to the judge three (3) days
prior to the commencement of the hearing.

Any person planning on attending the hearing who requires special accessibility features
and/or any auxiliary aids (such as sign language interpreters) must request those sufficiently in
advance of the hearing to allow accommodation, subject to the limitations set forth in 29 C.F.R.
§2706.150(a) and § 2706.160(d).

If a settlement is reached after November 5, 2012, the parties are directed to appear at the
hearing. In the event of a settlement reached before this date, the Secretary is directed to contact
my law clerk, Maggie Palmer, at 202-233-4015 or at [email protected] immediately. Unless a
written Order is issued upon my direction removing the matter from the docket, the parties are
directed to appear at the time and place designated for hearing.

No continuances will be granted.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ms. Palmer.                            

/s/ Priscilla M. Rae  

Priscilla M. RaeAdministrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Pollyanna E. F. Hampton, Esq., U. S. Department of Labor, 1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West,
Arlington, VA 22209-2247

Douglas N. White, Esq., Assistant Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1100 Wilson
Blvd., 22nd Floor West, Arlington, VA 22209-2247

Wm. Scott Wickline, Esq., Betts Hardy & Rodgers, PLLC. 500 Lee St. East, Ste. 800, P.O. Box
3394, Charleston, WV 25333-3394

/mep