Consolidation Coal Company (ALJ decision, August 5, 1986)

Plain-English summary

Consolidation Coal Company contested three MSHA orders concerning its Blacksville No. 1 Mine. At a scheduled hearing, the parties reported an agreement that would resolve the cases without taking evidence. Consolidation said it would withdraw its contest of one order, which would remain as issued, but no withdrawal motion for that docket appears in this decision. MSHA agreed to change the other two orders into section 104(a) citations while keeping their significant and substantial findings. Judge George A. Koutras granted the withdrawal request for those two contests and dismissed all three contests under the parties' agreement. The decision assessed no penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: No specific regulation is identified in the decision.
• Outcome: Three contests dismissed under the parties' agreement; one order stood as issued and two were modified to section 104(a) citations. No penalty assessed.
• Key point: The parties' agreement resolved the contests without a hearing on the alleged violations.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

AUG 5 1986

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, : CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
Contestant :
V .
: Docket No. WEVA 86-311-R
: Order No. 2711294; 4/16/86
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
: Docket No. WEVA 86-312-R
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
: Order No. 2711295; 4/16/86
Respondent :
Docket No. WEVA 86-313-R
Order No. 2711298; 4/16/86
Blacksville No. 1 Mine
ORDER DISMISSING CONTESTS
Before: Judge'Koutras
The captioned cases were scheduled for hearing with several other dockets heard in Morgantown, West Virginia, during the term July 29 - 31, 1986. When the cases were called, counsel for the parties advised me on the record that they have reached an agreement which will enable me to dispose of the cases without the necessity of hearings.
With regard to Docket No. WEVA 86-311-R, counsel advised me that the contested section 104(d) (2) order should be affirmed as issued and that the contestant no longer desired to contest the order and would file a motion to withdraw its contest.
With regard to Docket Nos. WEVA 86-312-R and WEVA 86-313-R, counsel advised me that MSHA has agreed to modify the contested section 104(d)(2) orders to section 104(a) citations, with "significant and substantial" (S&S) findings. Under the cir- cumstances, contestant moved to withdraw the contests, and the request was granted.

1165
 In view of the foregoing agreements by the parties, I see no reason why these contests should not be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.

Distribution:
W. Henry Lawrence, Esq., Steptoe and Johnson, P.O. Box 2190, Clarksburg, WV 26301 (Certified Mail) Mark Swirsky, and William T. Salzer, Esqs., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 14480 Gateway Building, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Certified Mail)

/fb

1166