Ezel / Agency Decisions / cent-86-100-m-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket CENT 86-100-M Decided November 12, 1986 Settled Judge Paul Merlin

Bandas Industries, Inc.

Bandas Industries, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 86-100-M): Five-violation settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1986
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

MSHA and Bandas Industries asked the ALJ to approve a settlement covering five violations at the Nolanville Quarry and Plant. The settlement reduced the total penalties from $713 to $535 because of lower negligence or gravity, limited exposure, difficult testing conditions, and the operator's small size. The violations involved inadequate guarding, dump-truck brakes, unguarded screen-drive pinch points, unguarded generator fan blades, and miners not wearing hard hats where material could fall. Judge Paul Merlin approved the settlement and ordered Bandas to pay $535 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 56.14011, 56.9003, 56.14006, 56.14001, and 56.15002; 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: The five-violation settlement was approved, reducing the total penalties to $535.
  • Key point: Settlement penalties may be reduced when the record supports lower gravity or negligence and the operator is small.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BANDAS
DDATE:
19861112
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1733

       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 86-100-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 41-01786-05514

v.                                  Nolanville Quarry and Plant

BANDAS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
RESPONDENT

                DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

 The parties have filed a motion to approve settlements of

five violations involved in this case. The total of the
originally assessed penalties was $713. The parties now recommend
penalties in the sum of $535.

 The motion discusses each violation in light of the six

criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977. Citation No. 2662416 was issued for
violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14011 because of inadequate guarding
on the primary plant impact crusher. A reduction in the proposed
penalty from $105 to $79 is now recommended because of reduced
negligence. The operator believed in good faith that the hazard
had been abated. An inspector from the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) had observed the same condition and
had prescribed a method of abatement. The operator had followed
the instructions of the OSHA inspector but these did not meet
MSHA's requirements.

 Citation No. 2662418 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.9003 because of inadequate brakes on a dump truck. A reduction
in the proposed penalty from $168 to $126 is now recommended
because of reduced gravity. The conditions under which the brakes
were tested were extreme. The truck was loaded greater than it
would be in actual practice and it was operated on a steeper
grade than it ever was while in service.

 Citation No. 2662425 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.14006 because of failure to guard the pinch points of a drive
motor on a screen. A reduction in the proposed penalty from $136
to $102 is now recommended because of reduced gravity. Exposure
of miners to the hazard was extremely limited.

Page 3

~1734
Citation No. 2662426 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.
56.14001 because of failure to guard the fan blades of a portable
generator. A reduction in the proposed penalty from $136 to $102
is now recommended because of reduced gravity. Exposure of miners
to the hazard was limited.

 Citation No. 2662427 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.

56.15002 because of the failure of some miners to wear hard hats
in areas where material may fall. A reduction in the proposed
penalty from $168 to $126 is now recommended because of reduced
gravity and negligence. The operator had issued hard hats to its
employees and had instructed the employees to wear them. The
employees who were not wearing hard hats usually did not work in
areas where there was a hazard of falling objects, and were
seldom exposed to this hazard. I approve the recommendation but
the operator should make sure in the future that all affected
employees wear hard hats.

 The representations and recommendations of the parties are

accepted, especially in light of the operator's small size.

 Accordingly, the motion to approve settlements is GRANTED

and the operator is ORDERED TO PAY $535 within 30 days of the
date of this decision.

                          Paul Merlin
                          Chief Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1986, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.