Costain Coal Incorporated
Costain Coal Incorporated (FMSHRC KENT 92-452): Four civil penalty citations settled for $688
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.
Plain-English summary
MSHA sought civil penalties for four alleged violations of mandatory safety standards in 30 C.F.R. Part 75 at Costain Coal's Pyro No. 9 Wheatcroft operation. The parties agreed to settle without reducing any of the proposed penalties. Judge Jerold Feldman found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest after reviewing the penalty criteria and the facts surrounding the citations. Costain was ordered to pay $688, and the proceeding was to be dismissed after payment.
Decision snapshot
- Governing rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.30. The decision does not identify the specific Part 75 standards.
- Outcome: Four citations were settled for a total civil penalty of $688, with no reduction from the proposed amounts.
- Key point: The settlement was approved after the Secretary submitted information on the statutory penalty criteria and the facts underlying the citations.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 92-452
Petitioner : A.C. No. 15-13920-03732
v. :
: Pyro No. 9 Wheatcroft
COSTAIN COAL INCORPORATED, :
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Feldman
Statement of the Proceedings
This proceeding concerns 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
four(4) alleged violations of certain mandatory safety standards
found in Part 75, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. The
respondent filed timely answers denying the alleged violations.
The parties have decided to settle this matter, and the
Secretary has filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission Rule
30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the proposed
settlements. No reduction in penalties is proposed. The
citations, initial assessments, and the proposed settlement
amounts are as follows:
Proposed
Citation No. Assessment Settlement
3549975 $ 126.00 $ 126.00
3549976 $ 178.00 $ 178.00
3546673 $ 192.00 $ 192.00
3546677 $ 192.00 $ 192.00
Discussion
In support of the proposed settlement disposition, the
petitioner has submitted information pertaining to the six
statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the
Act. In addition, the petitioner has submitted a full discussion
and disclosure as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the
issuance of the citations in question.
Conclusion
After careful review and consideration of the pleadings,
arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve the
proposed settlement of this case, I conclude that the
proposed settlement disposition is reasonable and in the public
interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, the
motion IS GRANTED, and the settlement IS APPROVED.
ORDER
Respondent IS ORDERED to pay civil penalties in the amount
of $688 in satisfaction of the violations in question. Payment
is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30) days of the date of this
order, and upon receipt of payment, this proceeding IS DISMISSED.
Jerold Feldman
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Mary Sue Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville,
Tennessee 37215 (Certified Mail)
Catherine Lamey, Esq., Loss Prevention, Costain Coal
Incorporated, P.O. Box 289, Sturgis, KY 42459 (Certified Mail)
vmy
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, 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.