.
EAGLE COAL COMPANY, INC.
KENT 2000-125-D
March 24, 2003


         FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
               OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
            601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500  
                     Washington, D.C.  20001

                          March 24, 2003


SECRETARY OF LABOR,               : DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
   MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH         :
   ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),         : Docket No.  KENT 2000-125-D
   on behalf of RAYMOND ROMAN,    : PIKE CD 99-04
               Complainant        :    
                        v.        :    
                                  :
EAGLE COAL COMPANY, INC.,         : No. 10 Mine
               Respondent         : Mine ID No. 15-17977

             ORDER DENYING MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING

     Hearings in this case were initially scheduled on April 21, 2000, 
to commence on June 6, 2000. On May 23, 2000, at the request of the 
Respondent, hearings were postponed and rescheduled to commence on 
August 15, 2000.  At hearing on August 15, 2000, Respondent moved for a 
stay because two of its essential witnesses were then the subject of 
related criminal and "Section 110(c)" investigations.

     On November 15, 2002, the Secretary filed a motion to lift the stay, 
however, counsel for both parties advised that they would not be available 
for trial until April 2003.  On November 27, 2002, the stay order was 
therefore continued but the parties were ordered therein to hold open 
April 1, 2003, as the trial date.  A second notice to that effect was 
issued on March 7, 2003.

     On March 21, 2003, the Respondent again filed a motion for continuance 
of hearing claiming that it had not received a requested letter from the U.S. 
Attorney that he would not prosecute two of his key witnesses, and that those 
witnesses would therefore still find it necessary to assert their Fifth
Amendment Constitutional privilege (the grounds for the initial stays in this
case).  However, since it is not the general practice of U.S. Attorneys to 
issue letters guaranteeing not to prosecute, it is unlikely, under the 
Respondent's scenario, that trial of this case could ever commence.

     Respondent, as well as the Secretary, also claim that they are having 
difficulty locating witnesses.  Since they were informed of the April 1, 2003, 
trial date nearly four months ago however they have had ample time to locate 
those witnesses.

     Considering the age of this case and the above factors, I cannot grant 
the requested postponement, and it is therefore denied.



                              Gary Melick
                              Administrative Law Judge
                         

Distribution: (By Facsimile and Certified Mail)

Joseph B. Luckett, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 
2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-201, Nashville, TN 37215

Michael J. Schmitt, Esq., Wells, Porter, Schmitt & Jones, 327 Main Street,
P.O. Drawer 1767, Paintsville, KY 41240-1767

\mca