Quarto Mining Company (ALJ decision, January 21, 1981)
Quarto Mining Company (FMSHRC LAKE 80-385): Dust plan citation vacated and separate penalty settled
What's the rule today?
This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
MSHA sought penalties for two citations against Quarto Mining at its Powhatan No. 7 Mine. Assistant Chief Judge Paul Merlin vacated a citation under the dust control plan standard because an earlier decision had held the same plan provision invalid. He approved the parties' $150 settlement for a separate dust standard citation. The Commission later vacated its direction for review of this docket without deciding the dust plan issue. This ALJ decision dismissed the penalty petition for the first citation and ordered Quarto to pay $150 for the second.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.316 and 70.100(b).
- Outcome: Citation No. 1009643 vacated; $150 settlement approved for Citation No. 9938290.
- Key point: A prior ruling on the same dust control plan provision disposed of one citation, while the other was settled.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. QUARTO MINING
DDATE:
19810121
TTEXT:
~266
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Civil Penalty Proceeding
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. LAKE 80-385
PETITIONER
A/O No. 33-02624-03106
v.
Powhatan No. 7 Mine
QUARTO MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION
ORDER TO PAY
This case consists of a petition for the assessment of civil penalties for two alleged violations of the Act. The Solicitor has filed a motion to approve a settlement for one of the two citations.
Citation 1009643 was issued for an alleged violation of 30 CFR 75.316. On September 8, 1980 a hearing was held in Secretary of Labor v. Nacco Mining Company, Quarto Mining Company and The North American Coal Corporation, LAKE 80-251, et al. in which the same provision of respondent's dust control plan at issue in this citation was litigated. In those cases a decision dated September 22, 1980 held invalid this provision of the dust control plan. The decision in LAKE 80-251 is dispositive of this citation.
Citation 9938290 was issued for a violation of 30 CFR 70.100(b). The parties have proposed a settlement of $150 for this violation. After having reviewed this citation I approve the recommended settlement.
ORDER
Citation 1009643 is hereby VACATED and the petition to assess a civil penalty is DISMISSED insofar as it concerns this citation.
The operator is ORDERED to pay $150 within 30 days from the date of this decision.
Paul Merlin
Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge
What controls your case today?
The Commission reviewed this case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts there and answers your situation under current law, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace