Consolidation Coal Company

Plain-English summary

MSHA alleged that Consolidation Coal violated a safeguard at the Shoemaker Mine and sought a civil penalty. After the hearing, the Secretary moved to approve a settlement, explaining that the safeguard language may not have given the operator sufficient notice of what was required under varying mining conditions. Judge Avram Weisberger approved the settlement, ordered the company to issue safe-travel instructions and hold a safety meeting, and vacated the safeguard and Citation No. 3326035. The order resolved the case without imposing the contested citation.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.1403
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, the safeguard and Citation No. 3326035 were vacated, and safety-instruction and meeting requirements were imposed.
• Key point: A safeguard may be vacated in a settlement when its language did not give the operator sufficient notice of the required conduct.

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. WEVA 91-30
PETITIONER A. C. No. 46-01436-03825
v.
Shoemaker Mine
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                               DECISION

Appearances: Page H. Jackson, Office of the Solicitor, U. S.
Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia, for the
Petitioner;
Walter J. Scheller III, Esq., Consolidation Coal
Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.

Before: Judge Weisberger

Statement of the Case

 This case is before me based on a petition for assessment of

civil penalty filed on November 5, 1989, alleging a violation of
30 C.F.R. 75.1403. Subsequent to the filing of an Answer and
pursuant to notice, the case was heard in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on February 20-21, 1991. Joseph Yudasz, Louis Paul
Jones, Nelson Thomas Blake, Thomas Dale Updegraff, and Dennis
O'Neil testified for the Secretary (Petitioner). Edward Roy
Pride, II, Michael Blevins and James A. Deems testified for the
Operator (Respondent).

 Subsequent to the hearing on May 30, 1991, Petitioner filed

a Motion to Approve Settlement. In its motion, counsel for
Petitioner asserts that the language in the notice to provide
safeguard, which provided the basis for the issuance of the
citation at issue herein, ". . . may not provide Consol with
sufficient notice of what is required to comply with the
safeguard under the various mining conditions encountered at the
Shoemaker Mine." This assertion is consistent with the evidence
that was adduced at the hearing.

The motion seeks an order vacating the safeguard and citation at
issue, and ordering Respondent to issue instruction for safe
travel, and conduct a safety meeting concerning these
instructions. Based on the record before me, I conclude that such
an order fairly disposes of the issues in this case, and is
consistent with the purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. Accordingly, the
motion is granted.

 It is ordered that: (1) Consol shall issue at the Shoemaker

Mine, within thirty (30) days of the date of the order, the safe
work instruction attached as Exhibit 1; (2) Consol shall conduct
a safety meeting, which concerns the contents of the safe work
instruction attached as Exhibit 1, with all miners working on the
longwall section at the Shoemaker Mine within thirty (30) days of
the date of the order; and (3) Notice to provide Safeguard No.
3326026, and section 104(a) Citation No. 3326035 shall be
vacated.
Avram Weisberger

                                   Administrative Law Judge

Exhibit 1
SAFE WORK INSTRUCTION