Highwire, Incorporated (ALJ decision, October 23, 1987)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor proposed civil penalties against Highwire, Incorporated for eight alleged violations of mandatory safety standards at its No. 1 Mine. The parties agreed to pay the full proposed amounts, $126 in KENT 87-95 and $380 in KENT 87-156. Judge George A. Koutras found the settlements reasonable and in the public interest, approved them, and ordered payment within 30 days. The proceedings would be dismissed after the Secretary received payment.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 C.F.R. §§ 77.404(a), 77.410, 77.1605(b), and 77.1606(c), plus 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
• Outcome: The settlements were approved for the full proposed civil penalties totaling $506.
• Key point: The judge approved payment of the proposed assessments after reviewing the statutory penalty criteria and the parties' settlement information.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. HIGHWIRE INC.
DDATE:
19871023
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1812

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 87-95
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 15-15684-03508

v. Docket No. KENT 87-156
A.C. No. 15-15684-03509
HIGHWIRE, INCORPORATED,
RESPONDENT
No. 1 Mine

DECISIONS

Appearances: Thomas A. Grooms, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Nasvhille, Tennessee, for the Petitioner;
Eugene C. Rice, Esq., Paintsville, Kentucky, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Koutras

Statement of the Proceedings

These proceedings concern proposals for assessment of civil penalties 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 77, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations.

These cases were among eight cases scheduled for hearing in Paintsville, Kentucky, during the hearing term September 22Ä23, 1987. When the cases were called for trial, counsel for the parties advised me that the parties agreed to a proposed settlement of the cases, and they were afforded an opportunity to present their proposals on the record pursuant to Commission Rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30. The citations, proposed assessments, and the settlement amounts are as follows:

Docket No. KENT 87Ä95
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessments Settlements

2784217 11/13/86 77.404(a) 63 63 2784219 11/13/86 77.410 63 63
$126 $126

Docket No. KENT 87Ä156
30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessments Settlements

2780392 03/04/87 77.1605(b) 85 85

Page 3

2780393 03/04/87 77.1606(c) 85 85 2780394 03/04/87 77.410 85 85 2780395 03/04/87 77.410 85 85 2780396 3/05/87 77.1606(c) 20 20 2780397 03/05/87 77.1606(c) 20 20

$380 $380

Page 4

~1813
Discussion

In support of the proposed settlement of these cases, the parties presented information with respect to the six statutory civil penalty assessment criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act. The parties incorporated by reference certain stipulations entered into in the prior proceedings conducted on September 22, 1987, and they are as follows:

1. The respondent is subject to the Act.

2. The respondent is a small-to-medium sized operator engaged in auger and strip coal mining activities.
During the period November, 1986 through March, 1987, the respondent employed approximately 25Ä45 employees, with an annual coal production of 241,616 tons.

3. Respondent's history of prior violations for the period July 1, 1986 through March 4, 1987, reflects that the respondent paid civil penalty assessments for 36 violations, all of which were issued as section 104(a) citations.

4. All of the citations in question were timely abated by the respondent in good faith.

Page 5

~1814
5. Payment of the proposed civil penalty assessments will not adversely affect the respondent's ability to continue in business.

I take note of the fact that the respondent has agreed to make payment for the full amount of the proposed civil penalty assessments for the violations in question. I note further that the inspectors who issued the citations were present in the court room, and petitioner's counsel asserted that he discussed all of the violations with the inspector's and that they concurred in the proposed settlement dispositions advanced by the parties.

Conclusion

Upon careful review and consideration of the pleadings, and the information furnished by the parties in support of the proposed settlement of these cases, I conclude and find that they are reasonable and in the public interest and should be approved. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, the settlements ARE APPROVED.

ORDER

The respondent IS ORDERED to pay civil penalty assessments in the settlement amounts shown above in satisfaction of the violations in question within thirty (30) days of the date of these decisions. Upon receipt of payment by the petitioner, these proceedings are dismissed.

George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge