Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. El Paso Sand Products, Inc. (ALJ decision, January 24, 1986)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary proposed $3,600 in penalties for eight violations at El Paso Sand Products' Chadwick Pit, and the parties proposed settlements for the same total. Chief Judge Paul Merlin found the settlement motion inadequate because it gave no meaningful analysis of the violations or penalties. He nevertheless found that MSHA's accompanying narrative justified the amounts under the Mine Act's penalty criteria. He approved the settlements and dismissed the case because the operator had paid. The decision does not identify the individual safety standards involved.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provision: Mine Act section 110(i), governing Commission penalty assessments.
• Outcome: Eight settlements totaling $3,600 approved; case dismissed after payment.
• Key point: MSHA's supporting narrative supplied the analysis missing from the settlement motion itself.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. EL PASO SAND PRODUCTS
DDATE:
19860124
TTEXT:
~148

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. CENT 85-43-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 41-03162-05504

v. Chadwick Pit

EL PASO SAND PRODUCTS, INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

The Solicitor has filed a motion to approve settlements of the eight violations involved in this matter. The originally assessed amounts were $3,600 and the proposed settlements are for $3,600. The Solicitor's motion is wholly inadequate because it does not analyze the violations or demonstrate why the proposed settlements should be allowed beyond reciting the bare conclusion that they are fair and reasonable. Moreover, the Solicitor erroneously refers to section 105(b)(1)(B) of the Act which concerns the Secretary's assessment of civil penalties instead of section 110(i) which sets forth the Commission's authority. However, MSHA's narrative findings fully explain and justify the violations and penalty amounts in light of the statutory criteria set forth in section 110(i). On the basis of MSHA's analysis, I accept the recommended proposals.

Accordingly, the recommended settlements are Approved and the operator having paid, this matter is Dismissed.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge