Southern Ohio Coal Company v. Secretary of Labor (ALJ decision, March 7, 1986)

Plain-English summary

Southern Ohio Coal Company contested a citation requiring guardrails at its Martinka No. 1 Mine. At a hearing, the parties agreed that MSHA would remove certain areas from the citation and Southern Ohio would install berms and guardrails in the remaining areas. After they carried out the agreement and MSHA terminated the citation, Southern Ohio asked to withdraw its contest. Judge James A. Broderick granted the motion and dismissed the proceeding. The order states no penalty or cited safety standard.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: The dismissal order does not identify the standard underlying Citation No. 2705734.
• Outcome: Contest withdrawn and dismissed after the agreed changes and abatement; no penalty ordered here.
• Key point: The parties narrowed the guardrail requirement, completed the agreed work, and ended the contest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOUTHERN OHIO V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19860307
TTEXT:
~341

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

SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY,
CONTEST PROCEEDING
CONTESTANT
Docket No. WEVA 86-29-R
v. Citation No. 2705734;
10/23/85
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Martinka No. 1 Mine
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appearances: David A. Laing, Esq., and Alvin J. McKenna, Esq., Alexander, Ebinger, Fisher & Lawrence, Columbus, Ohio, for Contestant;
Robert A. Cohen, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Arlington, Virginia for Respondent.

Before: Judge Broderick

Pursuant to notice, the above proceeding was called for hearing in Fairmont, West Virginia on November 20, 1985. The parties agreed on the record to a settlement of the contested citation, whereby MSHA would remove certain areas from the scope of the citation (requiring the installation of guard rails), and Contestant agreed to install berms and guardrails in the remaining areas. The abatement time of the citation was extended.

On March 5, 1986, Contestant filed a motion to withdraw its Notice of Contest on the ground that the provisions of the agreement had been effected and the citation was terminated.

Premises considered, the motion is GRANTED and this proceeding is DISMISSED.

James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge