Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEVA 87-204-R

Beckley Coal Mining Company (ALJ decision, August 13, 1987)

Beckley Coal Mining Company (FMSHRC WEVA 87-204-R): Safeguard contest dismissed for lack of Commission jurisdiction

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEVA 87-204-R
Decided
August 13, 1987
Presiding judge
Gary Melick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-20
Cited standards
30 U.S.C. § 824(b) 30 U.S.C. § 815(d) 29 C.F.R. § 2700.20 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) 30 U.S.C. § 815(b) 30 U.S.C. § 811(c)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1987
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary issued Beckley Coal Mining Company a safeguard notice under section 314(b) of the Mine Act, and Beckley attempted to contest it under the Commission's procedural rule for contests. The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing that the Commission's contest jurisdiction covers orders, citations, penalty assessments, and abatement time, but not safeguard notices. Judge Gary Melick granted the motion and dismissed the attempted contest. The judge noted that Beckley could contest a later citation or order issued for failing to comply with the safeguard notice.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 824(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(d); 30 C.F.R. § 2700.20
  • Outcome: The attempted contest of Safeguard No. 2575910 was dismissed because the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the safeguard notice.
  • Key point: A safeguard notice itself was not among the matters that could be contested under section 105(d), although a later citation or order for noncompliance could be contested.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
BECKLEY COAL V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19870813
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1454

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

BECKLEY COAL MINING
CONTEST PROCEEDING
COMPANY,
CONTESTANT
Docket No. WEVA 87-204-R
v. Safeguard No. 2575910; 4/24/87

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Beckley Mine
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Before: Judge Melick

On April 24, 1987, a notice to provide safeguard was issued by the Secretary under section 314(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et. seq., the "Act," to the Beckley Coal Mining Company (Beckley). On May 26, 1987, Beckley attempted to contest that safeguard notice "pursuant to Section 2700.20 of the Rules of Procedure".

Thereafter, on June 4, 1987, the Secretary filed his Answer and a Motion to Dismiss stating therein that neither section 105(d) of the Act nor Commission Rule 20 provide for the contest or review before this Commission of notices of safeguards. The Secretary noted that Section 101(c) of the Act provides a mechanism for the operator to challenge or contest mandatory safety standards (or a notice of safeguard enforced as a mandatory safety standard) and that such proceedings are not within the Commission's jurisdiction. Beckley did not respond to the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss.

Commission Rule 20(a) cited by Beckley as authority for its attempt to contest the notice of safeguard at issue, tracks the language of section 105(d) of the Act. Under that section a mine operator may contest an order issued under section 104, a citation or a penalty assessment issued under section 105(a) or section 105(b), or the reasonableness of the length of abatement time fixed in a citation. The safeguard notice here challenged is not within any of these categories.

Page 3

~1455
Accordingly the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss filed in these proceedings is granted and the attempted contest of Safeguard No. 2575910 is dismissed. If the Secretary should subsequently issue a citation or order for a failure to comply with the safeguard notice the mine operator may then wish to file a contest under section 105(d) of the Act.

Gary Melick
Administrative Law Judge
(703) 756-6261

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace