William W. Long, employed by APAC, Arkansas Incorporated, McClinton - Anchor Division (ALJ decision, July 26, 1996)

William W. Long, employed by APAC, Arkansas Incorporated, McClinton - Anchor Division (FMSHRC CENT 96-41-M): $600 settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
CENT 96-41-M
Decided
July 26, 1996
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-12

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1996 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 1996
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

William W. Long, an employee of APAC, Arkansas Incorporated's McClinton-Anchor Division, was assessed an individual civil penalty after a conveyor belt was not deenergized and locked out before employees removed a large rock and applied belt dressing to the head pulley. The violation resulted in an injury. Judge Paul Merlin approved the parties' $600 settlement under the Mine Act's settlement criteria. Because the penalty had already been paid, the case was dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provision(s): 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), 30 C.F.R. § 56.12106, 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: The $600 settlement was approved, and the case was dismissed after payment.
  • Key point: The ALJ accepted the settlement after concluding it met the Mine Act's six settlement criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1730 K STREET N.W., 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

July 26, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. CENT 96-41-M
Petitioner
: A. C. No. 03-00039-05512A
:
v. : West Fork Quarry & Plant
:
WILLIAM W. LONG, EMPLOYED BY :
APAC, ARKANSAS INCORPORATED, :
McCLINTON-ANCHOR DIVISION, :
Respondent
:

ORDER ACCEPTING RESPONSE
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Merlin

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of a civil penalty under section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

On April 30, 1996, I disapproved the $300 settlement motion submitted by the parties and ordered them to submit information to upport their motion and directed the Solicitor to file the penalty petition along with all the required exhibits. On May 10, 1996, the Solicitor filed the penalty petition and exhibits, and on July 11, 1996, the parties submitted a second joint motion to approve settlement.

The civil penalty in this case was issued against the respondent, William Long, pursuant to section 110(c) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), based upon Citation No. 4322730 which alleged a violation of section 56.12016 of the mandatory standards.
30 C.F.R. § 56.12106. Citation No. 4322730 was
issued against Mr. Long's employer, APAC, Arkansas
Incorporated, McClinton-Anchor Division, because
the oversize conveyor belt was not deenergized and
locked out before employees removed a large rock
and applied belt dressing to the head pulley. The
violation resulted in an injury. Section 110(c)
provides for the assessment of civil penalties
against individual agents of an operator for
knowing and wilful violations. The originally
assessed penalty was $600 and the proposed
settlement now is $600 which the respondent has
already paid.

I accept the parties' representations and conclude that the settlement is appropriate under the six criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the settlement motion filed on July 11 is ACCEPTED as a response to the April 30 order.

It is further ORDERED that the recommended settlement for this case be APPROVED, and that the respondent having paid, this case is DISMISSED.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Distribution: (Certified Mail)

Connie M. Ackermann, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, 525 Griffin St., Suite 501,
Dallas, TX 75202

G. Bert Clark, Jr., Esq., APAC-Arkansas Inc.,
900 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 700, Atlanta, GA 30338-4780

/gl

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace