Kem Coal Incorporated

Plain-English summary

This civil penalty proceeding involved seven alleged violations at Kem Coal's No. 1 Surface Mine under standards in Parts 71 and 77 of the mine safety regulations. The parties agreed to settle the proposed penalties, reducing the total from $2,222 to $500. They also agreed to remove the significant-and-substantial designations from six citations because the circumstances made injury unlikely, including limited traffic, low operating speeds, scheduled repairs, and good visibility. Judge David F. Barbour found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest, approved it, and ordered payment within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 71.400, 77.1605(d), 77.410(c), and 77.410(a)
• Outcome: Seven citations were resolved for $500 total, and six citations were modified by deleting their S&S designations.
• Key point: Settlement findings about low likelihood of injury and mitigating operating conditions supported reducing penalties and removing S&S designations.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. KEM COAL INC.
DDATE:
19930519
TTEXT:

Page 2

~912

      FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

             OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                    2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
                     5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

                              :

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 93-59
Petitioner : A.C. No. 15-10180-03532
:
: No. 1 Surface Mine
v. :
:
KEM COAL INCORPORATED, :
Respondent :

                DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Barbour

                 Statement of the Proceeding

 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
seven alleged violations of certain mandatory safety standards
found in Parts 71 and 77, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations.
The Respondent filed a timely answer denying the alleged
violations, and the case was docketed for hearing on the merits.

 The parties now have decided to settle the matter,

and they have filed a motion pursuant to Commission Rule 30,
C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the proposed settlement.
The citations, initial assessments, and the proposed settlement
amounts are as follows:

                         30 C.F.R.

Citation No. Date Section Assessment Settlement
3399676 09/09/92 71.400 $ 50 $ 50
3399677 09/09/92 77.1605(d) $362 $100
3399678 09/09/92 77.410(c) $362 $ 50
3399679 09/09/92 77.1605(d) $362 $100
3399680 09/09/92 77.1605(d) $362 $-0-
3399441 09/11/92 77.1605(d) $362 $100
3399442 09/11/92 77.410(a) $362 $100

 In support of the proposed settlement disposition of this

case, the parties have submitted information pertaining to the
six statutory civil penalty criteria found in Section 110(i) of
the Act, included information regarding Respondent's size,
ability to continue in business and history of previous

Page 3

violations.

Page 4

~913
In particular, with regard to Citation No. 3399676, the
parties noted that Respondent has agreed to pay in full the
proposed civil penalty.

 With regard to Citation No. 3399677, the parties note that

although the audible backup warning device and tail and brake
lights did not work on the cited rock truck, the gravity of the
violation was greatly mitigated by the fact that the backup
lights worked, there was no pedestrian traffic and minimal
vehicular traffic where the truck worked and the truck rarely
operated at a speed in excess of 20 mph. Moreover, the parties
agree that no injury was reasonably likely to occur because of
the violation and that the violation was not a significant and
substantial contribution to a mine safety hazard ("S&S"
violation).

 With regard to Citation No. 3399678, the parties agree the

inoperative backup alarm on the cited rock truck failed during
the shift on which the violation was cited and that the alarm was
scheduled to be repaired at the close of that same shift.
Moreover, as with the previous violation, the parties agree that
no injury was reasonably likely to occur due to the violation and
that the violation was not S&S.

 With regard to Citation No. 3399679, the parties agree that

although the tail and brake lights on the cited rock truck were
not operating, the gravity of the violation was greatly mitigated
for the reasons set forth with respect to Citation No. 3399677
and by the additional fact that the truck was operated only 1
shift per day during a day light shift. Moreover, the parties
agree that no injury is reasonably likely to occur because of the
violation and the violation not S&S.

 With regard to Citation No. 3399680, the parties note the

violations is similar to that alleged in Citation No. 3399679 and
that for the same reasons expressed concerning that violation the
gravity is greatly mitigated and the violation is not S&S.

 With respect to Citation No. 3399441, the parties note that

although the horn on the welding truck was inoperative as alleged
the truck was not licensed for highway use and was rarely used in
the vicinity of pedestrians. The parties therefore agree the
gravity of the violations is greatly mitigated. Because no
injury was reasonably likely to occur due to the violation the
parties also agree that it was not S&S.

 Finally, with regard to Citation No. 3399442, the parties

note that although the cited truck lacked an operable backup
alarm the gravity of the violation was greatly mitigated by the
fact that outside rear view mirrors on both sides of the truck
provided the driver with almost complete vision of what was
behind the truck. They also agree that no injury was
reasonably likely to occur because of the violation and that it
was not S&S.

Page 5

~914

                       CONCLUSION

 After review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments,

and submissions in support of the motion to approve the proposed
settlement of this case, I find that approval of the suggested
reduction in the penalties assessed for the subject violation is
warranted and that the proposed settlement disposition is
reasonable and in the public interest. 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

settlement amounts shown above in satisfaction of the violations
in question. In addition, the Petitioner IS ORDERED to modify
Citations No. 3399677, 3399678, 3399679, 3399680, 3399441 and
3399442 by deleting their S&S designations. Payment is to be
made to MSHA within thirty (30) days of the date of this
proceeding and upon receipt of payment, this proceeding is
DISMISSED.

                          David F. Barbour
                          Administrative Law Judge
                          (703)756-5232

Distribution:

Anne T. Knauff, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of
Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville, TN 37215
(Certified Mail)

Edward H. Adair, Esq., Reece, Lang & Breeding, PSC, 400 South
Main Street, P.O. Drawer 5087, London, KY 40745-5087 (Certified Mail)

/epy