Mid-Continent Resources, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Mid-Continent Resources was cited after an inspection found coal sloughage, timbers, and a trench obstructing a conveyor travelway at its Dutch Creek No. 2 underground coal mine. Judge John A. Carlson held that the safeguard covered the coal sloughage but did not clearly cover the timbers or trench. He affirmed the citation as modified, vacated it as to the timbers and trench, and reduced the proposed penalty from $119 to $40 because the proven exposure to the covered hazard was low and abatement was prompt.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.1403-5(g)
• Outcome: The citation was affirmed as modified, and the civil penalty was reduced to $40.
• Key point: A safeguard must give clear notice of the specific hazard and conduct required, but it is read as a whole and not hyper-technically.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES
DDATE:
19850926
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1457
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. WEST 85-17
PETITIONER A.C. No. 05-00469-03548

      v.                           Dutch Creek No. 2 Mine

MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES, INC.,
RESPONDENT

                             DECISION

Appearances: James H. Barkley, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado,
for Petitioner;
Edward Mulhall, Jr., Esq., Delaney & Balcomb,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado,
for Respondent.

Before: Judge Carlson

 This civil penalty proceeding, tried under the provisions of

the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801,
et seq., (the Act), arose out of a federal inspection of the
Dutch Creek No. 2 Mine of Mid-Continent Resources, Inc.
(Mid-Continent). On September 13, 1984, mine inspector Louis
Villegos issued a citation charging that Mid-Continent violated a
safeguard issued pursuant to 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g).(FOOTNOTE.1)

Page 3

~1458
The record shows that MSHA inspector Louis Villegos, during an
inspection of Mid-Continent's Dutch Creek No. 2 underground coal
mine on September 8, 1983, issued a safeguard because coal
sloughage allegedly obstructed a part of the 24 inch travelway on
one side of the 202 longwall strike belt.

 The "condition or practice" portion of the safeguard written

by the inspector reads:

     A clear travelway at least 24 inches wide was not
     provided on the upper side of the 202 longwall strike
     belt. The location was from the stage loader transfer
     point and continued outby for a distance of 150 feet.

     A clear travelway at least 24 inches wide shall be
     provided on both sides of all conveyor belts at this
     mine.

 The "action to terminate" portion of the same document was

filled in the same day. It reads:

     The travelway was cleaned up of the coal sloughage to
     provide the travelway.

 At a subsequent visit to the mine on September 13, 1984

Inspector Villegos issued a citation under section 104(a) of the
Act charging a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g). The
improper "condition or practice" was described thusly:

     A clear travelway at least 24 inches wide was not
     provided on the uphill side of the 5th north double entry

Page 4

~1459
strike conveyor belt. The lack of clearance was at numerous
locations starting 200 feet outby the two air lock doors and
inby to the section dump point. The obstructions were timber
at 5 inches from the belt, coal sloughage within one foot,
and parts of the travelway being through a trench one foot
in width.

The Secretary seeks a civil penalty of $119.00 for the violation.
The proposed penalty was duly contested by Mid-Continent and was
heard on July 19, 1985, at Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Both
parties declined to file briefs or other post-hearing
submissions; both argued the matter on the record.

                    REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
                       OF THE EVIDENCE

 There is virtually no dispute concerning the pertinent

facts. The Secretary offered the testimony of Inspector Villegos.
Mid-Continent presented no witnesses.

 In its answer to the Secretary's petition proposing penalty,

Mid-Continent urged that the safeguard should be vacated because
30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g) applies only to conveyors used to
transport persons or materials. (It is undisputed that the belts
here in question were used exclusively to move coal.) After the
filing of the pleadings in this case, however, the Commission
ruled that section 75.1403-5(g) applied to conveyors used solely
for coal-carrying, as well as those used to transport materials
or miners. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 493 (April 1985);
Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 506 (April 1985). Respondent
thus no longer questions that its conveyors are covered by the
criterion cited by the Secretary.

 Mid-Continent now maintains that the safeguard written by

Inspector Villegos was not broad enough to cover the subsequent
citation, and that the citation is therefore void. For support in
this contention Mid-Continent looks to Southern Ohio Coal
Company, 7 FMSHRC 509 (April 1985). In that case the Commission
noted that the safeguard provisions of the Act confer upon the
Secretary "unique authority" to promulgate the equivalent of
mandatory safety standards without resort to the formal
rule-making procedures demanded elsewhere in the Act. It
therefore held that safeguards, unlike ordinary standards, must
be strictly construed. The safeguard notice, that is to say,
"must identify with specificity the nature of the hazard at which
it is directed and the conduct required of the operator to remedy
such hazard." Fundamental to this concept is the notion that the
operator must have clear notice of the conduct required of him.

 Mid-Continent's position is best summarized in this

statement by counsel:

Page 5

~1460
Our contention under Southern Ohio is that the
safeguard which was originally written was not broad
enough to include these specific items. The original
safeguard required construction of belts, 24 inch
clearance. That was accomplished. The subsequent
instructions [sic] were not specifically addressed.
Therefore, and properly, the subsequent obstructions
have to be themselves the subject matter of a second
safeguard. That essentially is our case. (Transcript
at 17-18).

 As I perceive it then, Mid-Continent's argument is that the

underlying safeguard notice mentioned none of the obstructions
specified in subsequent citation: timbers, coal sloughage and a
trench. Mid-Continent also appears to suggest that the original
safeguard was directed at a failure of the operator to construct
the conveyor so as to leave a 24 inch space between the rib and
the outer edge of the conveyor.

 The information elicited in the testimony of Inspector

Villegos, however, gives little support to Mid-Continent's
arguments. He testified that he saw coal sloughage beside the
conveyor which reduced the area of clear passage to less than the
24-inches required in 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g). He maintained
that he told this to Mid-Continent's representative at the scene,
Mr. Elmer Smallwood, to whom he delivered the safeguard. Mr.
Smallwood agreed to get two men to clean up the coal, Villegos
testified, and the cleanup was done by 11:00 a.m., an hour and a
half after the safeguard's issuance (Tr. 21-24). Villegos also
testified that the coal was his sole concern at the time; he had
no objection to the way the conveyor was constructed.

 Villegos was the only witness to testify. I find his

representations to be true. They are, among other things,
consistent with the abatement notation on the face of the
safeguard which declares, "The travelway was cleaned up of the
coal sloughage to provide the travelway."

 In deciding the scope of the original safeguard I first note

that the inspector completed the block on the form desginated
"condition or practice" with very broad language which
essentially repeats the operative words of 30 C.F.R.
75.1403-5(g). It names no specific hazards or causes of hazards.
Under Southern Ohio, supra, one must question whether a mere
repetition of a regulatory criterion can, alone, stand as a valid
safeguard. That question need not be resolved here, however,
since I am convinced that Inspector Villegos's safeguard
document, read in its entirety, conveyed an unmistakeable picture
of the proscribed hazard: an accumulation of coal sloughage which
partially obstructed the 24-inch travelway.

Page 6

~1461
In reaching this conclusion I necessarily hold that a safeguard
notice should be read in its entirety to determine its proper
scope. The "action to terminate" portion of the notice in this
case makes clear to any reasonable reader that the hazard was
coal sloughage. Moreover, there can be no question that actual
misunderstanding of the true aim of the safeguard existed; the
evidence shows that the sloughage was cleaned up under the
direction of a management official who discussed the nature of
the notice with the inspector.

 Put another way, the Commission's insistence upon a narrow

construction of safeguard notices does not require the
hyper-technical reading urged by Mid-Continent. In Southern Ohio
the Commission recognized as much when it said:

     The requirements of specificity and narrow
     interpretation are not a license for the raising or
     acceptance of purely semantic arguments. . . . We
     recognize that safeguards are written by inspectors in
     the field, not by a team of lawyers. (Southern Ohio,
     supra, N. 2 at 521.)

 I do, however, accept certain parts of Mid-Continent's

argument. Under the Commission's reasoning in Southern Ohio, I am
not convinced that either the shallow trench or the timbers in
the 24-inch travelway were encompassed within the limits of the
underlying notice to provide safeguards. The specification of
"coal sloughage" in the original notice was broad enough to
embrace the casual presence or accumulation of coal or similar
solid objects in the travelway. It was not, however, broad enough
to include a wholly dissimilar impediment to travel such as a
shallow trench. The trench differed from such solid objects in
much the same way as accumulated water in Southern Ohio differed
from the rocks and construction debris which were covered by the
previous safeguard.

 The status of the timbers which allegedly impinged on the

walkway space is not so clear. Had the timbers been left on the
floor to join the coal sloughage as tripping-and-falling hazards,
they should logically be treated as a "similar" hazard covered by
the underlying safeguard. The inspector's testimony, however,
indicated that the timbers were not merely a loose impediment
lying on the floor. Rather, they were upright timbers installed
as a part of the roof control system (Tr. 29). The timbers
therefore constituted what may be referred to as an essential
part of the underground mine structure. In that sense they
represented an abatement problem far different from the mere
removal of random obstacles left on the travelway floor. They
differed enough from the class of objects akin to coal sloughage
to remain outside the reasonable scope of inspector's notice of
safeguard.

 Consequently, I conclude that the citation issued to

Mid-Continent was valid with respect to the coal sloughage, but
was invalid with respect to the shallow trenches and timbers. The
citation will be affirmed as to the former and vacated as to the

Page 7

latter.

Page 8

~1462
A further matter deserves brief mention. The conveyor referred to
in the inspector's notice of safeguard was a different conveyor
located in a different part of the mine from the conveyor
referred to in the subsequent citation. This difference is of no
legal significance. The safeguard issued on September 8, 1983 was
directed to "all conveyors in this mine." The evidence shows that
both conveyors were of the sort covered by 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g).

                           PENALTY

 We now turn to the matter of an appropriate civil penalty.

Section 110(i) of the Act requires the Commission, in penalty
assessments, to consider the operator's size, its negligence, its
good faith in seeking rapid compliance, its history of prior
violations, the effect of a monetary penalty on its ability to
remain in business, and the gravity of the violation itself.

 The parties stipulate that payment of the Secretary's

proposed penalty of $119.00 would not impair Mid-Continent's
ability to continue in business. They further stipulate that the
company produced 743,844 tons in all its operations in 1983, and
463,504 tons in the mine in question. Finally, they stipulate
that abatement was prompt. The government presented no evidence
concerning Mid-Continent's history of prior violations. Such
history must therefore be treated as favorable in this proceeding.

 I must conclude that the gravity of the violation was low.

The Secretary's original $119.00 penalty proposal was in part
predicated upon the presumed hazards presented by the upright
timbers and the shallow trenches in the travelway. These hazards
cannot be considered in the present penalty, however, since they
were outside the reach of the safeguard notice. More important,
however, the exposure of miners to the established hazard--coal
sloughage--was quite low. The inspector's testimony revealed that
miners would seldom use the travelway next to the conveyor; their
presence would tend to be limited to inspections of or
maintenance on the conveyor itself.

 Considering all these elements, I conclude that the proposed

$119.00 is excessive. I hold that a civil penalty of $40.00 is
reasonable.

                      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 Upon the entire record herein, and consistent with the

findings contained in the narrative portion of this decision, the
following conclusions of law are made:

(1) The Commission has jurisdiction to decide this case.

Page 9

~1463
(2) Mid-Continent violated the safeguard issued on September 8,
1983 under 30 C.F.R. 75.1403-5(g) as charged in that part of
the citation alleging an unlawful accumulation of coal sloughage
within the 24-inch-wide travel space required to be maintained
next to the 5th north double entry strike conveyor belt.

 (3) Mid-Continent did not violate the safeguard with respect

to the presence of timbers or trenches as alleged in the citation
because such hazards or conditions were not within the scope of
the safeguard.

 (4) A civil penalty of $40.00 is appropriate for the

violation established.

                            ORDER

 Accordingly, the citation, as modified in this decision, is

ORDERED affirmed; and Mid-Continent is ORDERED to pay a civil
penalty of $40.00 within 30 days of the date of this decision.

                           John A. Carlson
                           Administrative Law Judge

ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
FOOTNOTES START HERE:-

~Footnote_one

 1 Section 75.1403-5(g) is a "criterion" regulation issued by

the Secretary under authority of section 314 of the Act. The
statutory section survives from the 1969 Coal Act and provides
special enforcement procedures for hazards involving
transportation of men and materials. It provides:

      Other safeguards adequate, in the judgment of an

authorized representative of the Secretary, to minimize hazards
with respect to transportation of men and materials shall be
provided.

Section 75.1403-1(b) sets forth the conditions under
which the Secretary's representatives may issue citations for an
operator's failure to comply with a safeguard. It provides:

      The authorized representative of the Secretary shall in

writing advise the operator of a specific safeguard which is
required pursuant to 75.1403 and shall fix a time in which the
operator shall provide and thereafter maintain such safeguard. If
the safeguard is not provided within the time fixed and if it is
not maintained thereafter, a notice [citation] shall be issued to
the operator pursuant to section 104 of the Act.

      The inspectors' authority in writing safeguards is

circumscribed by the "criteria" regulations which define the
limits within which the safeguards may issue. Section

Page 10

75.1403-5(g), the criterion relied upon in this case, applies to
belt conveyors. It provides:

      A clear travelway at least 24 inches wide should be

provided on both sides of all belt conveyors installed after
March 30, 1970. Where roof supports are installed within 24
inches of a belt conveyor, a clear travelway at least 24 inches
wide should be provided on the side of such support farthest from
the conveyor.