BHP Copper Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, June 23, 1998)

Plain-English summary

After a fatal ground fall at BHP's San Manuel Mine killed one miner and injured another, MSHA sought the injured miner's address and telephone number during its investigation. BHP declined to provide the information without the miner's consent, and the judge found that this did not unlawfully impede the investigation. The judge granted BHP's motion for summary decision, vacated Citation No. 7922328, and dismissed the proceeding. The Commission later reversed that result and remanded for assessment of a penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 813(a), 30 U.S.C. § 815(d)
• Outcome: BHP's motion for summary decision was granted, Citation No. 7922328 was vacated, and the proceeding was dismissed.
• Key point: The judge held that MSHA's warrantless inspection authority did not require BHP to immediately disclose confidential employee contact information without the employee's consent or legal process.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1244 SPEER BOULEVARD #280
DENVER, CO 80204-3582
303-844-3577/FAX 303-844-5268

June 23, 1998

BHP COPPER COMPANY, INC., : CONTEST PROCEEDING
Contestant
:
: Docket No. WEST 98-189-RM
v. : Citation No. 7922328; 3/13/98
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : San Manuel Mine MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH : ID No. 02-00151
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
:
Respondent
:

DECISION GRANTING CONTESTANT=S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION

This contest proceeding w a s brou g ht by BHP Copper, Inc., ( ABHP@) u nder Section 10 5( d) of the Federa l M ine Sa fety a nd Hea lth A ct of 1977, 30 U.S.C. ' 815( d) ( the AM ine A ct@ or AA ct@). BHP contests Cita tion No. 7922328, issu ed on M a rch 12, 1998, a lleg ing a viola tion of section 103( a ) of the M ine A ct. The condition or pra ctice section of the cita tion sta tes:

The opera tor im peded M SHA =s investig a tion into a M a rch 4, 1998, fa ta l a ccident by w ithholding vita l inform a tion requ ested by the M SHA a ccident investig a tion tea m . A t a m eeting a t 9:0 0 a m on M a rch 6, 1998, betw een M SHA a nd opera tor representa tives, the M SHA a ccident investig a tion tea m requ ested the a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber of Rona ld Byrd, a n em ployee of BHP Copper a nd a m iner a t the Sa n M a nu a l M ine, w h o ha d been inju red in the a ccident. Rona ld Byrd w a s a n essentia l w itness in the a ccident investig a tion, a nd the M SHA a ccident investig a tion tea m needed to conta ct him for a n interview . The m ine opera tor refu sed to provide M SHA w ith this inform a tion.
Opera tor representa tives a t the m eeting inclu ded W a rd Lu ca s, Sa fety M a na g er, BHP Copper; W a rren Tra w eek , M a na g er Sa fety, Hea lth & Secu rity, North A m erica n D ivision, BHP Copper; a nd M a rk Sa vit of Pa tton Bog g s, leg a l cou nsel for BHP Copper.

Page 2

Section 103( a ) of the M ine A ct provides, in pertinent pa rt:

A u thorized representa tives of the Secreta ry ... sha ll m a k e frequ ent inspections a nd investig a tions in coa l or other m ines ea ch yea r for the pu rpose of ... ( 4) determ ining w hether there is com plia nce w ith the m a nda tory hea lth or sa fety sta nda rds or w ith a ny cita tion, order, or decision issu ed u nder this title or other requ irem ents of this A ct .... For the pu rpose of m a k ing a ny inspection or investig a tion u nder this A ct, the Secreta ry ... or a ny a u thorized representa tive of the Secreta ry ... sha ll ha ve a rig ht of entry to, u pon, or throu g h a ny coa l or other m ine.

BHP filed a m otion for su m m a ry decision u nder 29 C.F.R. ' 270 0 .67. BHP contends tha t there a re no g enu ine issu es of m a teria l fa ct a nd tha t it is entitled to su m m a ry decision a s a m a tter of la w . The Secreta ry opposes BHP=s m otion. She contends tha t there a re m a teria l fa cts in dispu te a nd tha t, on the ba sis of fa cts not in dispu te, BHP is not entitled to su m m a ry decision. The Secreta ry a lso filed a cross- m otion for su m m a ry decision on the fa ct of viola tion ba sed on the u ndispu ted fa cts in this ca se.

I. THE UND ISPUT ED FA CTS

These u ndispu ted fa cts a re ta k en from the a ffida vits su bm itted by the pa rties. In insta nces w here there a re conflicts in testim ony, I a ccept the a ccou nt su bm itted by the Secreta ry. In som e insta nces, I su m m a rize the conflict below .

On M a rch 4, 1998, there w a s a fa ll of g rou nd a t the Sa n M a nu a l M ine tha t k illed a m iner a nd inju red a second m iner. On M a rch 5, 1998, M SHA su pervisor Richa rd La u fenberg a nd Inspector A rthu r Ellis a rrived a t the m ine to beg in a n investig a tion into the a ccident. The M SHA representa tives condu cted a physica l inspection of the a ccident site on tha t da te.

On M a rch 6, 1998, the M SHA representa tives interview ed a nu m ber of BHP em ployees a nd review ed BHP docu m ents. The M SHA representa tives w ere u na ble to interview Rona ld Byrd, the em ployee who w a s inju red in the a ccident, beca u se he w a s not a t the m ine. M SHA Inspector La u fenberg a sk ed BHP representa tives a bou t M r. Byrd=s m edica l condition. BHP representa tives inform ed M SHA tha t it w a s BHP=s u ndersta nding tha t M r. Byrd w a s being relea sed from the hospita l tha t da y. M r. La u fenberg a sk ed for M r. Byrd=s a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber. M r. Sa vit, who w a s present a t the m ine, a dvised M r. La u fenberg tha t BHP considered the telephone nu m bers a nd a ddresses of its em ployees to be confidentia l a nd tha t BHP w ou ld not provide this inform a tion. Inspector La u fenberg d oes not reca ll tha t a nyone from BHP offered to ca ll M r. Byrd to obta in his consent. W a rren Tra w eek , BHP=s m a na g er of Sa fety, Hea lth, a nd Secu rity, reca lls tha t BHP m a de a n offer to conta ct M r. Byrd to determ ine if he w ou ld consent to BHP providing M SHA w ith his a ddress a nd phone nu m ber. M r. Tra w eek does not reca ll whether M SHA representa tives responded to this offer.

2

Page 3

D u ring these discu ssions, BHP representa tives indica ted tha t they believed tha t M r.
Byrd lived in Su perior, A rizona . On Sa tu rda y M a rch 7, Inspector La u fenberg tra veled to Su perior to a ttem pt to loca te M r. Byrd. Rona ld Byrd w a s not listed in the phone book a nd the police depa rtm ent did not ha ve a ny inform a tion a bou t him . Inspector La u fenberg ca lled W a rd Lu ca s, the m a na g er of sa fety for the Sa n M a nu el M ine, a t his hom e to inform him tha t he cou ld not loca te M r. Byrd in Su perior. Lu ca s told La u fenberg tha t Byrd m a y be sta ying w ith rela tives. La u fenberg a dvised Lu ca s tha t he w ou ld try ca lling persons listed in the phone book w ith the su rna m e AByrd,@ bu t tha t if he w a s u nsu ccessfu l, he w ou ld tu rn the m a tter over to the Solicitor=s office. La u fenberg testified tha t Lu ca s replied tha t if he cou ld not find Byrd to Aca ll him ba ck .@ La u fenberg testified tha t Lu ca s did not offer to find or provide the requ ested a ddress a nd phone nu m ber. Lu ca s testified tha t w h en La u fenberg a sk ed him if he ha d Byrd=s a ddress or phone nu m ber, he replied tha t he did not ha ve tha t inform a tion bu t tha t he w ou ld try to g et it for him . M r. Lu ca s testified tha t he obta ined this inform a tion tha t da y, bu t tha t Inspector La u fenberg never ca lled him ba ck .

A fter the telephone conversa tion betw een La u fenberg a nd Lu ca s, the inspector ca lled a Robert Byrd listed in the phone book . Robert Byrd w a s a rela tive of Rona ld Byrd a nd he provided the inspector w ith the necessa ry inform a tion.

II. SUM M A RY OF THE PA RTIES A RGUM ENTS

A . BHP

BHP sta tes tha t the essentia l fa cts in this ca se a re not in dispu te a nd tha t it is ripe for decision. It a rg u es tha t section 103( a ) of the M ine A ct does not requ ire m ine opera tors to provide inform a tion to M SHA u nless su ch inform a tion is requ ired to be k ept a nd m a de a va ila ble to the Secreta ry in the M ine A ct or the Secreta ry=s reg u la tions. BHP contends tha t the Secreta ry requ ires opera tors to k eep certa in ca teg ories of records a nd inform a tion w h ich m u st be m a de a va ila ble to M SHA inspectors. Section 103( d) specifica lly g ra nts the Secreta ry this a u thority when there a re a ccidents a t a m ine. BHP a rg u es tha t it w a s oblig a ted u nder the M ine A ct w a s to provide a ccess to the m ine site a nd to records a nd inform a tion tha t a re requ ired to be k ept u nder the M ine A ct or the Secreta ry=s reg u la tions.

In this ca se, M SHA dem a nded tha t BHP sea rch its personnel records to find the inform a tion it w a nted. BHP sta tes tha t this type of sea rch is beyond the w a rra ntless sea rch a u thority g ra nted the Secreta ry u nder section 103( a ). Section 103 does not a u thorize the nonconsensu a l w a rra ntless sea rch of files a nd records in a m ine office.

BHP m a inta ins tha t the inform a tion sou g ht by M SHA is the priva te inform a tion of the em ployee a nd tha t it w a s w ithin its rig ht to w ithhold this inform a tion. BHP contends M SHA m u st perm it the com pa ny to seek a n em ployee=s consent before disclosing priva te inform a tion a bou t the em ployee. It believes tha t it cou ld be su bject to civil lia bility if it relea ses priva te em ployee inform a tion w ithou t the consent of the em ployee.

3

Page 4

BHP a lso a rg u es tha t the Secreta ry m a y not im pose sa nctions in this ca se beca u se it did not first file a civil a ction u nder section 108 of the M ine A ct. BHP contends tha t M SHA m u st obta in a n inju nction or other a ppropria te order from the D istrict Cou rt before it ca n obta in sa nctions for refu sa l to com ply w ith a w a rra ntless sea rch.

BHP contends tha t its refu sa l to provide the persona l inform a tion did not im pede M SHA =s investig a tion beca u se M SHA ha s m u ltiple m ethods to com pel produ ction. For exa m ple, M SHA cou ld ha ve u sed the pow ers in section 103( b) of the M ine A ct to issu e a su bpoena for the su bject inform a tion. M SHA cou ld a lso ha ve sou g ht this inform a tion from other sou rces, su ch a s M r. Byrd=s u nion representa tives, the United Steelw ork ers.

Fina lly, BHP notes tha t du ring a n interview of a BHP em ployee on M a rch 6, the em ployee refu sed to provide his a ddress a nd phone nu m ber to M SHA . The M SHA representa tives told the em ployee tha t it w a s w ithin his rig ht to w ithhold this inform a tion. BHP a rg u es tha t if a n em ployee ha s the rig ht to refu se to provide this inform a tion, his em ployer ca nnot ta k e tha t rig ht a w a y from him by providing the inform a tion w ithou t the em ployee=s consent.

B. Secreta ry of La bor

The Secreta ry contends tha t m a teria l fa cts a re in dispu te w h ich prevent su m m a ry decision in BHP=s fa vor. She contends tha t BHP did not offer to provide the a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber of M r. Byrd if it w ere a ble to obta in his consent. She a lso disa g rees w ith M r. Lu ca s=s sta tem ent tha t he told Inspector La u fenberg d u ring the M a rch 7 telephone ca ll tha t he w ou ld try to find Byrd=s telephone nu m ber.

The Secreta ry a rg u es tha t the u ncontested fa cts show tha t she is entitled to su m m a ry decision. The fa cts revea l tha t BHP u nrea sona bly w ithheld vita l inform a tion du ring a n investig a tion thereby interfering w ith a nd obstru cting a n investig a tion into a fa ta l a ccident in viola tion of M SHA =s rig ht of entry u nder section 103( a ). This refu sa l to provide inform a tion dela yed M SHA =s investig a tion by one da y. This condu ct effectively fru stra ted the investig a tion a nd denied the Secreta ry the fu ll rig ht of entry g ra nted u nder section 103( a ). She disa g rees w ith BHP=s position concerning its oblig a tions to provide inform a tion du ring a n M SHA investig a tion.

The Secreta ry a rg u es tha t a ny Aprofessed deriva tive priva cy interest@ in M r. Byrd=s a ddress a nd phone nu m ber is ou tw eig hed by the needs of the investig a tion. She m a inta ins tha t her Astrong pu blic policy a nd hu m a nita ria n interests@ su persede BHP=s Aflim sy@ concern for the priva cy interests of M r. Byrd. Beca u se im m edia te recollections a re the best recollections, M SHA m u st condu ct a sw ift investig a tion. BHP shou ld not be a llow ed to sta nd in M r. Byrd=s shoes beca u se he ha d Adeveloped a potentia lly a dverse interest@ to BHP a s a resu lt of his inju ries.

4

Page 5

The Secreta ry m a inta ins tha t she is not requ ired to resort to section 108 of the M ine A ct before im posing a pena lty for a viola tion of section 103( a ). She contends tha t the Com m ission ha s long recog nized this rig ht.

III. A NA LYSIS OF THE ISSUES

A m otion for su m m a ry decision ca n be g ra nted only if the entire record show s tha t Athere is no g enu ine issu e a s to a ny m a teria l fa ct@ a nd Athe m oving pa rty is entitled to su m m a ry decision a s a m a tter of la w .@ 29 C.F.R. ' 270 0 .67( b). I find tha t there a re no g enu ine issu es a s to a ny m a teria l fa ct. For pu rposes of considering the pa rties= m otions, I a ccept the fa cts a s set forth in the decla ra tion of M SHA Su pervisor La u fenberg . I a lso find tha t BHP is entitled to su m m a ry decision a s a m a tter of la w , a s set forth below .

The briefs filed by the pa rties m a k e broa d a nd sw eeping a rg u m ents concerning their interpreta tion of the la w a nd M SHA =s policies. I confine m y decision to those issu es tha t a re necessa ry to resolve this ca se. M a ny of the a rg u m ents m a de by the pa rties g o beyond wha t is before m e in this ca se.

BHP refu sed to provide M SHA w ith the na m e a nd a ddress of M r. Byrd w ithou t first obta ining his consent. His a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber w ere not w ithin the persona l k now led g e of the BHP officia ls present du ring the M SHA investig a tion. To obta in the inform a tion requ ested, BHP w ou ld ha ve been requ ired to retrieve his personnel file. Neither the M ine A ct nor the Secreta ry=s reg u la tions requ ire m ine opera tions to k eep a list of its em ployees w ith a ddresses a nd phone nu m bers or to m a k e su ch inform a tion a va ila ble to M SHA inspectors.

Section 103( d) requ ires opera tors to investig a te a ccidents a nd to m a k e a va ila ble to the Secreta ry records of su ch a ccident investig a tions. Section 103( h) requ ires opera tors to Aesta blish a nd m a inta in su ch records, a nd m a k e su ch reports, a nd provide su ch inform a tion, a s the Secreta ry ... m a y rea sona bly requ ire from tim e to tim e to perform his fu nctions u nder this A ct.@ This requ irem ent is in a ddition to a ny records tha t a re specifica lly requ ired to be k ept u nder the A ct.

The Secreta ry=s reg u la tions concerning a ccidents a nd records a re in 30 C.F.R. Pa rt 50 .
These reg u la tions conta in deta iled requ irem ents concerning the inform a tion tha t m u st be g a thered by m ine opera tors a nd provided to M SHA follow ing a ccidents. Nothing in the reg u la tions requ ires tha t opera tors provide M SHA w ith the a ddresses a nd telephone nu m bers of m iners.

The broa d issu e is whether section 103( a ) w h en rea d w ith section 103( h) requ ires m ine opera tors to im m edia tely provide M SHA w ith the na m es a nd telephone nu m bers of its em ployees w ithou t the consent of the em ployees, w h en su ch em ployees a re potentia l w itnesses to a fa ta l a ccident. In the context of this ca se, the issu e is w h ether BHP im peded M SHA =s investig a tion of the a ccident in viola tion of section 103( a ) of the A ct a s a lleg ed in the

5

Page 6

cita tion w h en it refu sed to provide M SHA w ith the a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber of M r. Byrd, w ithou t first obta ining his consent. I hold tha t BHP did not im pede M SHA =s investig a tion by its a ctions a nd tha t it did not viola te section 103( a ).

The decla ra tion of M r. La u fenberg revea ls tha t a t a bou t 1 p.m . on M a rch 6, he a sk ed M r. Lu ca s a bou t the sta tu s of M r. Byrd. M r. Lu ca s replied tha t Byrd w a s being relea sed from the hospita l. M r. La u fenberg a sk ed for his hom e a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber. M r. Sa vit told La u fenberg tha t BHP considered this inform a tion confidentia l a nd tha t the BHP w ou ld not provide this inform a tion. La u fenberg then a sk ed for the na m e of the city in w h ich M r. Byrd lived a nd Lu ca s replied tha t he thou g ht tha t he lived in Su perior. La u fenberg d oes not reca ll Lu ca s or Sa vit offering to conta ct Byrd to obta in his perm ission to relea se his phone nu m ber. No BHP representa tives provided La u fenberg w ith the a ddress or phone nu m ber of Byrd or indica ted tha t they ha d conta cted Byrd to obta in his consent.

W hen La u fenberg w a s u na ble to m a k e conta ct w ith Byrd in Su perior, he ca lled Lu ca s a t hom e. Lu ca s told La u fenberg tha t Byrd m a y be sta ying w ith rela tives bu t he did not sta te tha t he w ou ld a ttem pt to obta in Byrd=s a ddress a nd phone nu m ber. Lu ca s sim ply told La u fenberg tha t if he cou ld not find Byrd, he cou ld ca ll Lu ca s ba ck .

I hold tha t BHP w a s w ithin its rig ht to refu se to im m edia tely provide the inform a tion requ ested w ithou t obta ining M r. Byrd=s consent. The Secreta ry=s rig ht to inspect m ines w ithou t a sea rch w a rra nt ha s been broa dly constru ed a nd a pproved by the cou rts. The Secreta ry does not ha ve broa d a u thority to sea rch a n opera tor=s bu siness records w ithou t the opera tor=s consent. See e.g . Sew ell Coa l Co., 1 FM SHRC 864 ( Ju ly 1979)( A LJ). In effect, M SHA Inspector La u fenberg a sk ed BHP to sea rch the com pa ny=s personnel files to obta in the requ ested inform a tion. A m ine opera tor ha s a leg itim a te rig ht a nd perha ps a leg a l du ty to protect priva te inform a tion conta ined in the personnel files of its em ployees. The fa ct tha t M SHA only requ ested inform a tion for one em ployee a s opposed to m a ny em ployees does not cha ng e the resu lt. M SHA ca nnot requ ire m ine opera tors to im m edia tely provide confidentia l inform a tion from m ine em ployee personnel files u nder the w a rra ntless inspection a u thority of section 103( a ) in the a bsence of com pelling circu m sta nces. The m ine opera tor ha s a rig ht to requ ire tha t the m iner consent before su ch inform a tion is provided or to requ ire the Secreta ry to follow the procedu res of section 108 of the A ct. The Su prem e Cou rt, in u pholding w a rra ntless sea rches of m ines by M SHA , held tha t section 108( a ) Aprovides a n a dequ a te foru m for the m ineow ner to show tha t a specific sea rch is ou tside the federa l reg u la tory a u thority, or to seek from the district cou rt a n order a ccom m oda ting a ny u nu su a l priva cy interest tha t the m ineow ner m ig ht ha ve.@ D onova n v. D ew ey, 452 U.S. 594, 6 0 4 - 0 5 ( 1981).1

1
I do not rea ch the issu e concerning w hether the Secreta ry is requ ired to seek a n inju nction u nder section 108 before she ca n im pose a pena lty for a viola tion of section 103( a ).

6

Page 7

If M r. Byrd w ere a t the m ine on the da y of M SHA =s investig a tion, M SHA cou ld not requ ire him to provide his a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber a nd M SHA cou ld not com pel him to su bm it to a n interview . BHP shou ld not be requ ired to w a ive M r. Byrd=s rig hts w ithou t leg a l process. I hold tha t BHP ha d the rig ht to protect the priva cy of its em ployees. I do not a g ree w ith the Secreta ry=s position tha t this priva cy rig ht is ou tw eig hed by the Aneeds of the investig a tion@ or tha t BHP=s concerns a re Aflim sy.@ M SHA ca n obta in the inform a tion it needs w ithou t interfering w ith the rig hts of m iners. The Secreta ry=s a u thority u nder section 103( h) to requ ire opera tors to provide Asu ch inform a tion@ a s M SHA Am a y rea sona bly requ ire@ is not w ithou t lim its. It w a s not u nrea sona ble for BHP to refu se a requ est for persona l inform a tion a bou t M r. Byrd w ithou t his consent.

It is im porta nt to u ndersta nd tha t w h en Inspector La u fenberg w a s told tha t this inform a tion w a s confidentia l, he did not a sk BHP to a ttem pt to obta in M r. Byrd=s consent. Indeed, he did not bring u p the issu e a g a in u ntil he ca lled M r. Lu ca s the next da y. D u ring tha t conversa tion, Lu ca s told La u fenberg to ca ll him ba ck if he w a s u na ble to loca te Byrd. The Secreta ry em pha sizes tha t BHP did not obta in the consent of M r. Byrd to relea se his a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber. It is not the oblig a tion of a opera tor to volu nteer inform a tion du ring a n M SHA a ccident investig a tion. A n opera tor m u st coopera te, bu t it ca nnot be cited for the fa ilu re to volu nta rily provide inform a tion. If Inspector La u fenberg form a lly requ ested BHP, ora lly or in w riting , to obta in the consent of M r. Byrd a nd BHP fa iled to tim ely respond to the requ est or otherw ise interfered in M r. Byrd=s rig ht to consent, there m a y ha ve been a viola tion of section 103( a ) for fa ilu re to coopera te w ith the investig a tion. Tha t is not the ca se here, how ever, beca u se Inspector La u fenberg d id not follow u p on his requ est.

I find tha t BHP=s refu sa l to provide the inform a tion requ ested did not im pede the investig a tion. The Secreta ry cites a nu m ber of Com m ission ca ses to su pport its position, bu t these ca ses do not involve a refu sa l to provide inform a tion persona l to a m iner. In U. S. Steel Corp., 6 FM SHRC 1423, 1433 ( Ju ne 1984), the opera tor w ou ld not perm it M SHA to interview a forem a n u nless a n opera tor a ttorney w ere present. In its decision, the Com m ission a ssu m ed tha t the opera tor ha d the rig ht to ha ve a n a ttorney present. The fa cts revea l tha t w h en the opera tor requ ested tha t its a ttorney be present du ring the interview , the M SHA inspector told the m ine=s sa fety su pervisor tha t a rra ng em ents shou ld be m a de to provide a n a ttorney a s soon a s possible. Id. The sa fety su pervisor indica ted tha t he w ou ld let M SHA k now w h en a n a ttorney w ou ld be a va ila ble, bu t he did not propose a specific da te. T w o da ys la ter, the inspector retu rned to the m ine a nd w a s inform ed by the sa fety su pervisor tha t he ha d not hea rd ba ck from com pa ny hea dqu a rters. The Com m ission a ffirm ed the ju d g e=s finding of a viola tion of section 103( a ) on the ba sis tha t the sa fety su pervisor=s Afa ilu re to specify a da te certa in w h en a n a ttorney w ou ld be present, com bined w ith the fa ilu re to produ ce a n a ttorney, ha d the effect of u nrea sona bly dela ying the a ccident investig a tion.@ Id.

This ca se is disting u isha ble from U.S. Steel. Inspector La u fenberg d id not a sk BHP representa tives to a ttem pt to obta in the consent of M r. Byrd to provide his a ddress a nd telephone nu m ber. In a ddition, M SHA obta ined the inform a tion it requ ested throu g h other m ea ns in a bou t 24 hou rs. M SHA m a y ha ve been a ble to g et the inform a tion even m ore

7

Page 8

qu ick ly throu g h M r. Byrd=s Steelw ork ers representa tives. BHP w a s not the only sou rce for this inform a tion a nd, contra ry to the a rg u m ent of the Secreta ry, BHP did not Aforce@ Inspector La u fenberg to tra vel to Su perior. Fina lly, M r. Lu ca s=s sta tem ent to Inspector La u fenberg to ca ll him ba ck if La u fenberg w a s u na ble to loca te M r. Byrd show s tha t BHP w a s a ttem pting to coopera te w ith M SHA . I conclu de tha t BHP=s a ction in not im m edia tely providing the telephone nu m ber or a ddress of M r. Byrd w ithou t his consent did not ha ve Athe effect of u nrea sona bly dela ying the a ccident investig a tion.@ 6 FM SHRC a t 1433.

IV . ORD ER

For the rea sons set forth a bove, the m otion for su m m a ry decision filed by BHP Copper Com pa ny, Inc., is GRA NT ED ; the Secreta ry=s cross- m otion for pa rtia l su m m a ry decision is D ENIED ; Cita tion No. 7922328, issu ed M a rch 13, 1998, is V A CA TED ; a nd this proceeding is D ISM ISSED .

Richard W. Manning
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Mark M. Savit, Esq., Patton Boggs, 2550 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1350

Mark R. Malecki, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1954

RWM

8