Island Creek Coal Company
Island Creek Coal Company (FMSHRC KENT 98-313): Settlement approved and citation modified
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1999 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 alleged that Island Creek Coal Company violated the mine roof-control standard at Ohio No. 11 Mine and proposed an $8,000 penalty. The parties settled after the hearing, with Island Creek agreeing to pay $3,000. Judge Jacqueline R. Bulluck approved the settlement, directed MSHA to modify the citation from section 104(d)(1) to section 104(a), reduce the gravity to unlikely, and remove the significant-and-substantial designation. The case was to be dismissed after payment.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.220(a)(1)
- Outcome: The citation was modified through an approved settlement, and the penalty was reduced to $3,000.
- Key point: An approved settlement can change the enforcement classification and gravity designation as well as reduce the penalty.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, Suite 1000
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041
September 9, 1999
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 98-313
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-03178-03894
v. :
: Ohio No. 11 Mine
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :
DECISION
Appearances: Joseph B. Luckett, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee
for Petitioner;
Elizabeth S. Chamberlin, Esq., Consol Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for Respondent.
Before: Judge Bulluck
This case is before me upon a Petition for Assessment of
Penalty filed by the Secretary of Labor, through the Mine
Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"), against Island
Creek Coal Company ("Island Creek"), pursuant to section
105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 ("the
Act"), 30 U.S.C. §815. The Petition seeks a civil penalty of
$8,000.00 for an alleged violation of section 75.220(a)(1),
30 U.S.C. § 75.220(a)(1).
A hearing on the merits was convened on July 28, 1999,
in Henderson, Kentucky, during which MSHA Inspector Archie
Coburn testified. Based on conclusions drawn from the
inspector's testimony, the Parties entered into a discussion
and negotiated a settlement, whereby Petitioner agreed
to modify 104(d)(1) Citation No. 4274887 to a 104(a) citation,
to reduce the level of gravity to "unlikely," and to delete
the "significant and substantial" designation, and Respondent
agreed to pay a reduced penalty of $3,000.00. The settlement
was approved at hearing, and that determination is hereby
confirmed.
I have considered the representations and documentation
submitted in this case, and I conclude that the proffered
settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth in
section 110(i) of the Act.
ORDER
The settlement is approriate and in the public interest.
WHEREFORE, the approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is
ordered that the Secretary modify Citation No. 4274887 to a
104(a) citation, reduce the level of gravity to "unlikely,"
and delete the "significant and substantial" designation,
and that Respondent pay a penalty of $3,000.00 with thirty
(30) days of this Decision. Upon receipt of payment, this case
is DISMISSED.
Jacqueline R. Bulluck
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Joseph B. Luckett, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
Department of Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201,
Nashville, TN 37215 (Certified Mail)
Elizabeth S. Chamberlin, Esq., Consol Inc., Consol Plaza,
1800 Washington Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15241-1421
(Certified Mail)
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1999, 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.