FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001
December 12, 2006
MARFORK COAL COMPANY, INC., Contestant v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Respondent |
: : : : : : : : : |
CONTEST PROCEEDING Docket No. WEVA 2006-755-R Citation No. 7254911; 06/12/2006 River Fork Powellton #1 Mine ID 46-08914 |
DISMISSAL ORDER
Before: Judge Feldman
The captioned contest concerns a citation alleging a violation of section 75.1100(2)(b),
30 C.F.R. § 75.1100(2)(b), because of the contestant’s failure to provide a fire valve handle necessary for the connection of a fire hose located along the No. 2 beltline. This mandatory safety standard requires functional firehose outlets at 300-foot intervals along the entire length of a belt conveyor.
Marfork Coal Company, Inc. (Marfork) filed its contest of Citation No. 7254911 and then
contemporaneously agreed to stay its contest until the Secretary proposed her civil penalties.
Marfork’s agreement to stay its contest immediately after instituting this proceeding is identical
to the circumstances that resulted in the dismissal of its contests in Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-788-R through WEVA 2006-790-R, 28 FMSHRC 842 (Sept. 2006) (ALJ), appeal docketed
(Nov. 3, 2006), because, inter alia, it has failed to state the relief it is seeking as required by
Commission Rule 20(e)(1)(ii), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.20(e)(1)(ii).
Marfork asserts it has an absolute and unqualified right to file its contest under section 105(d) without being required to wait to file its contest of the proposed civil penalty under section 105(a). Opening Br. in WEVA 2006-788-R through WEVA 2006-790-R at p.9. However, Marfork’s “contest” elevates form over substance because, although it styles its filing as a 105(d) contest - - by routinely agreeing to stay its “105(d) contests” until the Secretary’s civil
penalty proposal, it indeed is waiting to contest the subject citation in a 105(a) civil penalty proceeding. In other words, Marfork is kicking and screaming over being required to do what it expressly wants to do anyway. Thus, Marfork’s contest is frivolous and an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the captioned contest proceeding IS DISMISSED because by agreeing to
stay this matter rather than requesting an early hearing,
Marfork has failed to state the relief it is
seeking as required by Commission Rule 20(e)(1)(ii).
Jerold Feldman
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution: (Certified Mail)
Robert H. Beatty, Jr., Esq., Carol Ann Manunich, Esq., Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, 2604 Cranberry Square, Morgantown, WV 26508
Glenn M. Loos, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1100 Wilson Blvd.,
22nd Floor, Arlington, VA 22209
/mh