Costain Coal Incorporated (ALJ decision, July 27, 1993)

Costain Coal Incorporated (FMSHRC KENT 92-1073 and related dockets): Settlements approved with listed settlement amounts

Decision type

ALJ decision

Dockets

KENT 92-1073, KENT 92-1110, KENT 93-25, KENT 93-206, KENT 93-261, KENT 93-260, KENT 92-1049

Decided

July 27, 1993

Presiding judge

George A. Koutras

Outcome

Settled

Precedential status

Final order, not precedent

Checked against source

2026-08-14

Cited standards

30 C.F.R. § 75.304 30 C.F.R. § 75.517 30 C.F.R. § 75.202 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 30 C.F.R. § 75.402 30 C.F.R. § 75.516-2(b) 30 C.F.R. § 75.316 30 C.F.R. § 75.606 30 U.S.C. § 820(a) 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31

Official source

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

PDF

View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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.

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

Costain Coal Incorporated contested civil penalty proposals covering seven related dockets and 22 alleged violations at its mines. The parties agreed to pay the original assessments for 16 citations and negotiated reduced amounts for six others. Judge George A. Koutras approved the settlements after reviewing the parties' arguments and the Mine Act penalty criteria, ordering payment of the listed settlement amounts and dismissal of the proceedings after payment.

Decision snapshot

Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.202, 75.304, 75.316, 75.400, 75.402, 75.516-2(b), 75.517, and 75.606
Outcome: The settlements were approved, the operator was ordered to pay the listed amounts, and the proceedings were to be dismissed after payment.
Key point: The judge approved negotiated penalty dispositions after finding them reasonable and in the public interest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 92-1073 Petitioner : A.C. No. 15-13920-03788
v. :
: Docket No. KENT 92-1110
COSTAIN COAL INCORPORATED, : A.C. No. 15-13920-03789 Respondent :
: Docket No. KENT 93-25
: A.C. No. 15-13920-03793
:
: Docket No. KENT 93-206
: A.C. No. 15-13920-03798
:
: Docket No. KENT 93-261
: A.C. No. 15-13920-03799
:
: Pyro #9 Wheatcroft
:
: Docket No. KENT 93-260
: A.C. No. 15-14492-03626
:
: Docket No. KENT 92-1049
: A.C. No. 15-14492-3616 R
:
: Baker Mine

DECISIONS

Appearances: Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, for the Petitioner;
Carl B. Boyd, Esq., Henderson, Kentucky, and R. Eberley Davis, Esq., Costain Coal Inc., Sturgis, 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 twenty-two (22) alleged violations of certain mandatory safety standards found in Part 75, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. The respondent filed timely answers and contests,

and in response to a prehearing order, the petitioner's counsel informed me that the parties proposed to settle most of the disputed citations, but were unable to resolve others. Under the circumstances, the cases were consolidated with other cases involving these same parties, and hearings were held in Evansville, Indiana, on June 8, 1993.

Discussion

In the course of the hearings, the parties informed me that the respondent agreed to pay the full amount of the initial proposed civil penalty assessments for sixteen (16) of the disputed citations in settlement of the violations. With respect to the remaining six (6) disputed citations, the parties informed me that after further discussions and negotiations, they proposed to settle the violations, and arguments in support of the proposed settlements were made and heard on the record (Tr. 5-11; 137-140).

Citation No. 3858304. The citation was issued after the inspector observed equipment tracks which led him to believe that a shuttle car trailing cable had been run over. The petitioner's counsel asserted that the evidence reflects that the cable was not damaged, and that the facts would not support the inspector's "S&S" finding. Under the circumstances, counsel concluded that the citation should be modified to a section 104(a) non-"S&S" citation, and the respondent agreed to pay the reduced penalty assessment.

Citation Nos. 3857517 and 3857734. With respect to Citation No. 3857517, petitioner's counsel stated that the available evidence supports a modification of the inspector's gravity finding because the number of miners exposed to any potential hazard was less than originally believed by the inspector. With regard to Citation No. 3857734, petitioner's counsel stated that the available evidence reflects a low degree of negligence, rather than the moderate negligence finding originally by the inspector. Under the circumstances, the parties believed that the reduced settlement penalty assessments were reasonable and warranted, and the respondent agreed to pay the modified penalties in settlement of the violations in question.

Citation Nos. 3552688, 3552693, and 3553249. The parties were in agreement that the available evidence reflects that the inspector failed to take any dust samples to support his gravity findings with respect to Citation No. 3553688, and the petitioner's counsel stated that the citation will be modified to

reflect a non-"S&S" violation. Petitioner's counsel further stated that the available evidence reflects that the hazard exposure associated with Citation No. 3552693, was less than originally believed by the inspector, and that the inspector's gravity finding will be modified to accurately reflect the number of miners exposed to the potential hazard. With respect to Citation No. 3553249, petitioner's counsel asserted that the available evidence reflects a low degree of negligence rather than the moderate negligence finding originally made by the inspector, and that the citation will be modified accordingly. The parties believed that the reduced penalty amounts for these citations were reasonable and warranted, and the respondent agreed to pay the modified penalties in settlement of the violations in question.

Findings and Conclusions

In addition to the arguments presented on the record in support of the proposed settlements, the parties also presented information concerning the six statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act. After careful review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments, and submissions in support of the proposed settlements, and pursuant to Commission Rule 31, 29 C.F.R. 2700.31, I rendered bench decisions approving the proposed settlements. Upon further review of the entire record, I conclude and find that the settlement dispositions which have been approved are reasonable and in the public interest, and my bench decisions are herein reaffirmed. The citations, initial assessments, and the settlement amounts are as follows:

Docket No. KENT 92-1073