.
MARIPOSA AGGREGATES
WEST 2000-231-M
March 15, 2001


        FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                    1244 SPEER BOULEVARD #280
                      DENVER, CO 80204-3582
                  303-844-3577/FAX 303-844-5268

                         March 15, 2001

SECRETARY OF LABOR,             : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH        :
  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),        : Docket No. WEST 2000-231-M
               Petitioner       : A.C. No. 04-04785-05553
                                :
                                : Docket No. WEST 2000-232-M
                                : A.C. No. 04-04785-05554
                                :
                                : Docket No. WEST 2000-239-M
          v.                    : A.C. No. 04-04785-05555
                                :
                                : Docket No. WEST 2000-240-M
                                : A.C. No. 04-04785-05556
                                :
                                : Docket No. WEST 2000-241-M
                                : A.C. No. 04-04785-05557
                                :
MARIPOSA AGGREGATES,            : Docket No. WEST 2000-520-M
               Respondent       : A.C. No. 04-04785-05560
                                :
                                : Docket No. WEST 2000-521-M
                                : A.C. No. 04-04785-05561
                                :
                                : Mariposa Aggregates Quarry

                  ORDER TO MARIPOSA AGGREGATES
     TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ITS CONTEST OF THE CITATIONS, ORDERS,
  AND PENALTIES AT ISSUE IN THESE CASES SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

     These  cases  commenced  when  the  Secretary of Labor filed
petitions  for  assessment  of  civil  penalty  against  Mariposa
Aggregates under the authority of section  105(a)  of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the "Mine Act"),  30  U.S.C �
815(a)  and  the  Commission's  Procedural  Rules at 29 C.F.R. ��
2700.25 & 2700.28.  These petitions assessed  penalties  for  the
107   citations  and  orders  issued  by  MSHA  against  Mariposa
Aggregates.   In  response,  Mariposa  Aggregates  stated that it
disputed the "purported claim of debt."  It further  stated  that
it  "discharged  and canceled [the `erroneous purported debt'] in
its  entirety by operation  of  law,  without  dishonor,  on  the
grounds  of breach, false representation, and fraud...."  It also
raised jurisdictional  issues.   It implied that neither MSHA nor
this Commission has jurisdiction over private property outside of
the  District  of  Columbia  and  U.S.   Territories.    Mariposa
Aggregates  raised other issues related to the Uniform Commercial
Code, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and other statutes.
Its response,  however, did not deny the allegations contained in
the  citations,  orders,   or   the   penalty   petitions.    The
Commission's  Procedural  Rules  provide  that  an  "answer shall
include a short and plain statement responding to each allegation
of the petition."  29 C.F.R. � 2700.29.

     On  January  19,  2001,  the  Secretary  filed a motion  for
summary  decision under the Commission's Procedural  Rule  at  29
C.F.R. � 2700.67.   In the motion the Secretary states that there
is no material issue  of  fact  as  to  the jurisdictional issues
raised by Mariposa Aggregates and that she is entitled to summary
decision on the jurisdictional issues as  a  matter  of law.  The
Secretary  also maintains that, because Respondent did  not  deny
the allegations set forth in the individual citations and orders,
she is entitled to summary decision on the merits of these cases.

     Mariposa  Aggregates  filed several documents in response to
the Secretary's motion.  In a document entitled "Notice of Return
of Erroneous Presentments,"  Mariposa  Aggregates  denies that it
owes  the  Secretary  any  money citing the requirements  of  the
Uniform Commercial Code.

     I also received a "Petition  for Redress of Grievances" from
Mariposa Aggregates.  It is styled  as  a  "Private International
Administrative  Remedy"  brought  against  the  undersigned,  the
Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge and two  employees of
the  Department  of  Labor.   The  document contains a series  of
"Statements of Fact."  In these statements,  Mariposa  Aggregates
maintains  that  its quarry is "within the boundaries of Mariposa
County in the Republic  of California" and the quarry is "outside
the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States."  It
also states that it "is not  the operator of the quarry" and that
there  are no employees at the  quarry.   The  document  contains
numerous  other  "statements  of  fact"  relating  to the UCC and
previous correspondence with representatives of the Secretary.

     By  order  issued  on  March 15, 2001, I held that,  at  all
pertinent  times,  the  Secretary  had  jurisdiction  to  conduct
warrantless inspections of  the  Mariposa  Aggregates  quarry, to
issue  citations  and  orders  for  violations of her safety  and
health  regulations,  and to propose civil  penalties  for  those
violations.

     In order to contest the merits of the citations, orders, and
civil penalty amounts in  these  cases,  Mariposa  Aggregates was
required  to  provide a "short and plain statement responding  to
each  allegation  of  the  petition."   (29  C.F.R.  �  2700.29).
Mariposa  Aggregates  failed  to  comply with this requirement in
these cases.  None of the documents  it  submitted include such a
"short  and  plain statement."  Mariposa Aggregates  only  raised
jurisdictional  issues and numerous irrelevant arguments, which I
rejected in my order of March 15 referred to above.

     I cannot grant summary decision on the merits in these cases
because the Secretary's  motion is not supported by affidavits or
other  verified documents.   The  declarations  attached  to  the
motion do  not  reach  the  substantive  issues.  The Secretary's
motion for summary decision is actually a  motion, filed under 29
C.F.R. �� 2700.10 and 2700.66, requesting that the contests filed
by Mariposa Aggregates be dismissed.  The Secretary  is  alleging
that  Mariposa  Aggregates  did  not comply with the Commission's
Procedural  Rules because it failed  to  answer  the  allegations
contained in  her  petitions  for  penalty.   In  her motion, the
Secretary states:  "Not only has the Respondent failed  to  raise
any  legally-recognizable  defenses  or  objections to either the
citations themselves or the assessed penalties  therefor,  he has
further  stated  in his Notice: `I don't contest the citations.'"
(Motion 10-11).  The  Secretary  is referring to a document filed
by  Mariposa  Aggregates  entitled  "Notice   of  Fraud;  Notice:
Certified Demand to Cease and Desist Collection  Activities Prior
to Validation of Purported Debt."  The Commission  construed this
document as Mariposa Aggregates' answer in these cases.   On  the
first page of this notice, Mr.  Bevan states "I  deny  requesting
a hearing  before your commission."

     Based  on the above and the complete record in these  cases,
the Secretary's  motion  to  dismiss Respondent's contests of the
citations, orders, and proposed  penalties appears to have merit.
It  is  not  at all clear that Mariposa  Aggregates  intended  to
contest the individual  citations  and orders.  Under 29 C.F.R. �
2700.66(a), however, I am required to  issue  an  order  to  show
cause before dismissing a party's case.

     Consequently,  Mariposa  Aggregates is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before April 20, 2001, why  its  contest  of the citations,
orders,  and  proposed  penalties  in these cases should  not  be
dismissed.  To satisfy the requirements  of  this order, Mariposa
Aggregates  must  state whether it contests the  allegations  set
forth in the individual  citations and orders.  If it does intend
to contest some or all of  the  citations and orders, it must set
forth the facts upon which it is  relying  in  its contest.  That
is, Mariposa Aggregates must specify the factual  basis  for  its
belief  that the specific condition or practice described in each
citation  and  order  is  incorrect.   Its  response  need not be
elaborate,  but  it must indicate its position on the allegations
contained in each  contested  citation and order and the proposed
penalty.

     If Mariposa Aggregates fails to timely respond to this order
or if its response does not address  the  conditions or practices
alleged in the citations and orders, I will grant the Secretary's
motion to dismiss Mariposa Aggregates' contest  of the citations,
orders, and penalties.  In such case, I will affirm each citation
and order and assess the proposed penalties.[1]


                              Richard W. Manning
                              Administrative Law Judge


**FOOTNOTES**

     [1]:   On March 2, 2001, the Secretary filed  a  motion  for
clarification  of Respondent's position and for leave to formally
reply.   In light  of  this  order  and  my  order  granting  the
Secretary's  motion  for  summary  decision on the jurisdictional
issues, the Secretary's motion is denied.


Distribution:

Jan Coplick, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,  U.S.  Department  of
Labor, 71 Stevenson St., Suite 1110, San Francisco, CA 94105-2999
(Certified Mail)

Wayne  R.  Bevan,  President,  Mariposa Aggregates, P.O. Box 942,
Mariposa, CA 95338 (Certified Mail)

Wayne R. Bevan, President, Mariposa  Aggregates, 3865 North Quail
Summit Lane, Provo, UT 84604 (Certified Mail)


RWM