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

 
EXTRA ENERGY, INC.
October 25, 1996
WEVA 96-13


           FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                   1730  K  STREET  NW,  6TH  FLOOR

                      WASHINGTON,  D.C.   20006


                           October 25, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR,             :
  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH        :
  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)         :
                                :
         v.                     :     Docket No. WEVA 96-13
                                :
EXTRA ENERGY, INC.              :


BEFORE:  Jordan, Chairman; Marks and Riley, Commissioners[1]


                                ORDER
                         DIRECTION FOR REVIEW

BY:  Marks and Riley, Commissioners

     On October 17, 1996, Extra Energy, Inc. ("Extra Energy") filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Commission's October 2, 1996 denial of Extra
Energy's Petition for Discretionary Review ("PDR").  Extra Energy's PDR sought
review of  Administrative Law Judge Gary Melick's decision dated August 23,
1996 in this case.  Pursuant to section 113(d)(1) of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Review Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. � 823(d)(1), the judge's decision
became a final decision of the Commission forty days after its issuance.  

     Upon consideration of the motion, and under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.
Pro., we reopen this matter, grant the motion for reconsideration, direct
review, and set this case down for oral argument.  An order setting the
date and terms of oral argument will issue at an appropriate time.

                                   ________________________________
                                   Marc Lincoln Marks, Commissioner

                                   ________________________________
                                   James C. Riley, Commissioner


Chairman Jordan, dissenting:

     The judge's August 23, 1996 decision in this case became a final decision
of the Commission forty days after its issuance.  The operator has asked us to
reopen these proceedings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6), which permits
relief from a final judgment or order for "any . . .  reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment."  However, because the respondent has failed
to allege any rationale for relief under this rule, I find no adequate basis on
which to grant it, and would therefore deny this motion.

                                   ________________________________
                                   Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


[1]  Pursuant to section 113(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. � 823(c), this panel of three Commissioners has been designated
to exercise the powers of the Commission.