Pyro Mining Company (ALJ decision, April 15, 1987)
Pyro Mining Company (FMSHRC KENT 86-6, KENT 86-40, KENT 86-68): Eight violations settled for $15,000
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1987 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 proposed penalties for eight alleged violations of mandatory safety standards at Pyro Mining Company’s Pyro No. 9 Slope and Palco Mine. The initial assessments totaled $16,300. The parties agreed to settlements totaling $15,000, including reduced amounts for two listed violations. Judge George A. Koutras found the settlements reasonable and in the public interest. He ordered payment within 30 days and dismissal of the proceedings after payment.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. §§ 50.12, 75.200, 75.301, 75.307-1, 75.313, 75.503, 75.509, and 75.511
- Outcome: Eight proposed penalties totaling $16,300 were settled for $15,000, with dismissal after payment.
- Key point: The judge approved the parties’ settlements after reviewing information about the violations and the statutory penalty criteria.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL V. PYRO MINING
DDATE:
19870415
TTEXT:
Page 2
~793
FMSHRC-FCV
APR 15, 1987
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. KENT 86-6 Petitioner A.C. No. 15-13881-03572 v.
Docket No. KENT 86-40
PYRO MINING COMPANY,
A.C. No. 15-13881-03576
Respondent
Pyro No. 9 Slope
Docket No. KENT 86-68
A.C. No. 15-14492-03518
Palco Mine
DECISIONS APPROVING SETTLEMENTS
Before: Judge Koutras
Statement of the Proceedings
These proceedings concern civil penalty proposals filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 820(a), seeking civil penalty assessments for eight alleged violations of certain mandatory safety standards found in Part 75, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. The respondent filed timely answers, and the cases were scheduled for hearings in Evansville, Indiana, on March 31, 1987. However, the hearings were cancelled after the parties advised me of their proposed settlements. They have now filed a joint motion pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30, seeking approval of the proposed settlements. The violations, initial assessments, and the proposed settlement amounts are as follows:
Page 3
~794
Docket No. KENT 86-6
Citation/
30 C.F.R.
Order No. Date Section Assessment Settlement
2508753 05/07/85 75.511 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2508757 05/09/85 75.509 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Docket No. KENT 86-40
Citation/
30 C.F.R.
Order No. Date Section Assessment Settlement
2513115 08/22/85 50.12 $ 500 $ 500 2513126 08/22/85 75.313 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2513127 08/22/85 75.503 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2513116 08/28/85 75.307-1 $ 1,000 $ 500 2513117 08/28/85 75.301 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Docket No. KENT 86-68
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessment Settlement
2837603 10/22/85 75.200 $ 800 $ 400
Discussion
The petitioner's initial proposed civil penalty assessments for the violations amounted to $16,300. The proposed settlements require the respondent to pay civil penalties in the amount of $15,000. In support of the proposed settlement dispositions, the parties have submitted information pertaining to the six statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act. In addition, they have submitted a full disclosure as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance of the violations, including copies of MSHA's reports of investigation.
Conclusion
After careful review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments, and submissions in support of the joint motion to approve the proposed settlements, I conclude and find that the proposed settlement dispositions are reasonable and in the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30, the motion IS GRANTED, and the settlements ARE APPROVED.
Page 4
~795
ORDER
The respondent IS ORDERED to pay civil penalty assessments in the settlement amounts shown above in satisfaction of the violations in question, and payment is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30) days of the date of these decisions and order. Upon receipt of payment, these proceedings are dismissed.
George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Thomas A. Grooms, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 280 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN 37203 (Certified Mail)
Mr. Bruce Hill, Pyro Mining Company, Post Office Box 267, Sturgis, KY 42459 (Certified Mail)
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