Highlands Mining & Processing Company, Inc.
Highlands Mining & Processing Company, Inc. (FMSHRC KENT 2002-110): Settlement approved with reduced penalty
Apply this to your situation
This order from 2003 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.
Plain-English summary
MSHA alleged seven violations of mandatory safety standards at Highlands Mining's No. 1 mine. The parties agreed that five citations would be paid as assessed, while two citations would receive reduced penalties and changes to their gravity or negligence findings. The judge found the proposed settlement reasonable and in the public interest. Highlands was ordered to pay $1,738, and the proceeding was dismissed after payment and the required citation modifications.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.400, 75.370(a)(1), 75.507-1(a), 75.1106-5(a), and 77.1110
- Outcome: Settlement approved, with the total penalty reduced from $1,871 to $1,738.
- Key point: The settlement resolved seven citations, including a reduced penalty for inactive gas-cylinder equipment and a reduced negligence finding for a weather-damaged extinguisher tag.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 9500
Washington, D. C. 20001-2021
Telephone No.: 202-434-9588
Telecopier No.: 202-434-9949
January 13, 2003
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 2002-110
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-16011-03527
v. :
: Mine: No. 1
HIGHLANDS MINING & PROCESSING :
COMPANY, INC., :
Respondent. :
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Barbour
This case concerns a proposal for assessment of civil penalty filed pursuant to
Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U. S. C. § 815(d),
the Act, seeking civil penalty assessment for 7 alleged violations of mandatory safety
standards found in Parts 75 and 77 Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations.
The parties have settled the matter and the Solicitor has filed a motion pursuant to
Commission Rule 31, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31, seeking approval of the proposed settlement.
The proposed settlement is as follows:
Citation/
Order No. Date 30 C.F.R. Assessment Settlement
7529460 07/25/01 75.400 $ 259.00 $ 259.00
7529461 07/25/01 75.400 259.00 259.00
7529462 07/31/01 75.400 259.00 259.00
7529466 07/31/01 75.370(a)(1) 259.00 259.00
7529467 07/31/01 75.507-1(a) 259.00 259.00
7529470 08/01/01 75.1106-5(a) 317.00 259.00
7529471 08/01/01 77.1110 259.00 184.00
Total: $ 1,871.00 $ 1,738.00
Citation No. 7529460 was issued because it is alleged that dry, black, float coal had
accumulated at various locations throughout the #2 Conveyor Belt for a distance of
approximately 400 feet.
6
Citation No. 7529461 was issued because it is alleged that dry, black, float coal had
accumulated at various locations throughout the #1 Conveyor Belt for a distance of
approximately 300 feet.
Citation No. 7529462 was issued because it is alleged that dry, black, float coal had
accumulated at various locations throughout the #3 entry of the 002 MMU immediately inby
the last open cross cut which had not had rock dust applied to the roof, ribs, and floor for a
distance of approximately 76 feet outby the face area.
Citation No.7529466 was issued because it is alleged that the approved ventilation,
methane, and dust control plan was not being followed as required.
Citation No. 7529467 was issued because it is alleged that a piece of non-permissible
equipment was being used extensively throughout the 002 MMU immediate and main return
outby the last open cross cut.
The Respondent has agreed to pay the proposed penalties for the aforementioned
citations.
Citation No. 7529470 was issued because it is alleged that the compressed gas
cylinder gages located outby the 002 MMU face belt drive were not maintained in safe
operating condition. The parties propose to modify the gravity to “no lost workdays” and to
reduce the penalty because they agree that the cylinders and gages were not in service at the
time of inspection.
Citation No. 7529471 was issued because it is alleged that the fire extinguisher
provided for the sub station located on the surface was not provided with a record of
inspection within the prior 6 months. The parties propose to modify the negligence to “low”
and to reduce the penalty because they agree that the extinguisher was fully charged and
because the Solicitor is unable to refute the Respondent’s claim that the tag provided on the
extinguisher was damaged by the weather.
In support of the proposed settlement, the Solicitor has submitted information
pertaining to the six statutory civil penalty criteria found in Section 110(i) of the Act,
including information regarding the Respondent’s size, ability to continue in business and
history of previous violations.
After review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments and submission in support
of the settlement motion, I find the proposed settlement is reasonable and in the public
interest. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31, the motion is GRANTED, and the settlement is
APPROVED.
ORDER
7
The Respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty of $1,738.00 in satisfaction
of the violations in question. Payment is to be made to MSHA within 30 days of the date
of this proceeding. Also, within the same 30 days the Secretary IS ORDERED to modify
the gravity for Citation No. 7529470 to “no lost work days” and to modify the negligence
for Citation No. 7529471 to “low.” Upon receipt of full payment and modification of
these citations, this proceeding is DISMISSED.
David F. Barbour
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Tommy D. Frizzell, Conference and Litigation Representative, U.S. Department of Labor,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, H.C. 66, Box 1762, Barbourville, KY 40906
Charles Robert Stump, President, Highlands Mining & Processing Company, Inc., P.O.
Box 280, Whitesburg, KY 41858
/mvc
8
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2003, 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.