Aracoma Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, August 25, 2006)

Plain-English summary

Aracoma Coal filed immediate contests of a citation and an order, seeking rulings that both were invalid. Soon afterward, it did not oppose the Secretary's request to stay the cases until the related civil penalties were filed. Judge Jerold Feldman questioned whether Aracoma had adequately stated the relief it wanted when it sought an early hearing but agreed to postpone it. He ordered Aracoma to explain why the contests should not be dismissed as inconsistent with Commission Rule 20 and as a duplicative use of Commission resources.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.20 and 2700.20(e)(1)(ii); 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(a) and 815(d)
• Outcome: Aracoma was ordered to show cause why its two contest proceedings should not be dismissed.
• Key point: An operator that seeks an immediate contest but agrees to wait for the penalty case may be required to explain what relief the separate contest provides.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FMSRHC ALJ DECISION

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001

August 25, 2006

ARACOMA COAL COMPANY, INC.,

Contestant

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION, (MSHA),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CONTEST PROCEEDINGS

Docket No. WEVA 2006-824-R

Citation No. 7253529; 07/13/2006

Docket No. WEVA 2006-825-R

Order No. 7253530; 07/14/2006

Aracoma Alma Mine #1
]
Mine ID 46-08801

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

These proceedings are before me based on a Notice of Contest of the subject citations filed with the Commission on July 28, 2006, pursuant to section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, (the Mine Act), 30 C.F.R. § 815(d). In its contests, Aracoma Coal Company, Inc., (Aracoma) denies each and every allegation contained in the contested citations. Aracoma identifies the relief sought in its contest as a Commission declaration, through Commission review, that the subject citation and order are invalid.

(Aracoma Contest, p.2). Such a declaration can only be rendered after a hearing on the merits of the contested citation and order.

The Secretary filed an answer to Aracoma’s contest on August 16, 2006, in which she moved to stay these matters pending the related civil penalty case. The Secretary’s answer noted that she conferred with Contestant’s counsel and he had no objection to her stay motion.

(Sec’y Mot., p.3).

An operator served with a citation alleging a violation of the Mine Act, or alleging a violation of a mandatory safety standard that has been abated, may immediately contest the citation under section 105(d) of the Mine Act without waiting for notification of the proposed penalty assessment. 30 C.F.R. § 815(d). In such cases, section 105(d) provides that “the Commission shall afford an opportunity for a hearing.” An operator may have an interest in an early hearing, such as in cases where continued abatement is expensive, or where the validity of the citation or order impacts on an operator’s continued exposure to 104(d) withdrawal sanctions. Energy Fuels Corporation, 1 FMSHRC 299, 307-08 (May 1979). Thus, the purpose of a 105(d) contest proceeding is to adjudicate the validity of a citation without waiting for the Secretary’s proposed civil penalty.

Alternatively, if the operator does not immediately contest a citation after it is issued, the operator may wait to contest the citation in a civil penalty proceeding pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act. 30 C.F.R. § 815(a). Waiting to contest citations until after the civil penalty is proposed facilitates settlement negotiations and limits discovery to citations that can only be resolved through litigation.

Commission Rule 20, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.20, implements the contest provisions of

section 105(d). Commission Rule 20(e)(1)(ii) provides that a notice of contest shall provide a plain statement of the relief requested. The relief requested by Aracoma is a Commission hearing on the merits of the citations without waiting for the Secretary’s proposed civil penalties.

By filing a contest on July 28, 2006, seeking an early adjudication, only to agree shortly thereafter to stay its contest pending the civil penalty case, it appears that Aracoma is, in substance, waiting for a disposition on the merits after the civil penalty is proposed. In other words, Aracoma has not adequately articulated the relief it seeks in its 105(d) notice of contest, since it has elected to wait for the 105(a) civil penalty matter.

The Commission’s processing of Aracoma’s 105(d) contests requires the duplication of docket files with incidental copying and storage for both the contest dockets and the ultimate civil penalty docket. Moreover, Aracoma’s 105(d) Notice of Contest requires pro forma rulings on stay motions that are lacking in substance. I am also cognizant of the Secretary’s burden of answering multitudes of 105(d) contests, only to await duplication of her answers in the

ultimate civil penalty proceedings. Simply put, a stay order postpones the pre-civil penalty hearing requested by Aracoma; a hearing that Aracoma implicitly concedes it does not want.

In view of the above, Aracoma IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 15 days from the date of this Order, why its 105(d) Notice of Contest of the subject citations should not be dismissed because of its apparent contravention of Commission

Rule 20(e)(1)(ii), and because it is a duplicative and needless consumption of the Commission’s resources. The Secretary shall be afforded the opportunity to reply to Aracoma’s response to the Order to Show Cause within 10 days thereafter.

Jerold Feldman

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution: (Certified Mail)

David J. Hardy, Esq., Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC, 300 Kanawha Blvd. East,

P.O. Box 273, Charleston, WV 25321

Francine A. Serafin, Esq., Mark R. Malecki, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West, Arlington, VA 22209-2247

/mh