<DOC>
[DOCID: f:buckdir.wais]

 
BUCK CREEK COAL INC.
March 27, 1995
LAKE 94-72


           FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                    1730 K STREET N.W., 6TH FLOOR

                       WASHINGTON,  D.C.  20006


                            March 27, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR,                :
  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH           :
  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)            :                   
                                   :  
          v.                       : Docket LAKE 94-72, etc.
                                   :
BUCK CREEK COAL INC.               :


                                 ORDER

     On February 17, 1994, Buck Creek Coal Inc. ("Buck Creek") filed with
the Commission a petition for interlocutory February 15, 1995, Order 
Continuing Stay (the "Stay review of Administrative Law Judge T. Todd 
Hodgdon's Order").[1]  The judge had previously stayed proceedings for 
ninety days or until the United States Attorney made a determination 
regarding the criminal prosecution of Buck Creek.  The Commission 
dismissed as moot the operator's petition for interlocutory review of 
the judge's previous stay.  Buck Creek Coal Inc., 17 FMSHRC ___ (February
1995). The Stay Order continues the stay until May 16, 1995, and directs
the parties to attend a status conference on that date for the purpose 
of deciding whether and under what conditions the stay should be
continued.  Stay Order at 5.

     Buck Creek urges the Commission to grant interlocutory review and to
grant it relief from the Stay Order so that it can defend itself against
the 554 citations and orders in these consolidated dockets.  Pet. at 4.
The Secretary responds that the judge did not abuse his discretion in
granting the stay in light of potential adverse effects on the ongoing
criminal investigation.  S. Opp'n at 4-6.


**FOOTNOTES**

[1]:The Commission held this petition in abeyance pending the  judge's  
ruling  on  Buck Creek's  late-filed  motion  for certification.  Buck
Creek Coal Inc., 17 FMSHRC ___ (March 1995). The judge has now denied 
Buck Creek's motion.  Order Denying Mot. for Certification at 6.


     We conclude that the Stay Order involves a controlling question of
law and that immediate review may materially advance the final disposition
of the proceeding.  See Commission Procedural Rule 76(a)(2), 29 C.F.R.
� 2700.76(a)(2).  The Commission therefore grants Buck Creek's petition.

     We find that the issues are adequately addressed in the parties' 
submissions. If the parties wish to file supplemental briefs, they must 
be received by the Commission by April 4, 1995.

     At the hearing on continuing the stay, counsel for the Secretary 
represented that he may be prepared to address, prior to May 16, 1995, 
the advisability of lifting the stay as to some consolidated dockets.  
Tr. 17.  We encourage the parties to confer promptly and report to the
judge regarding how the stay might be limited or modified before its
expiration.  During the pendency of this matter before the Commission,
the judge shall have continuing jurisdiction to lift or modify the stay 
based on the parties' submissions.


                                    ________________________________
                                            Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


                                    ________________________________
                                        Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner


                                    ________________________________
                                          Arlene Holen, Commissioner


                                     ________________________________
                                     Marc Lincoln Marks, Commissioner