Freeman United Coal Mining Company, a Division of Material Service Corp. (ALJ decision, June 10, 1981)

Plain-English summary

MSHA cited Freeman United Coal Mining Company after an inspector found that intersections and crosscuts at its Crown No. 2 Mine were driven wider than its approved roof control plan allowed. Before the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to settle a proposed $2,000 penalty for $1,500. They pointed out that the cited area was fully roof bolted and in good condition, and that a new roof control plan approved about a month after the citation would have left the area only about 18 inches too wide. Judge George A. Koutras approved the settlement as reasonable and ordered Freeman United to pay $1,500 within 30 days. The proceeding was to be dismissed upon payment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.200
• Outcome: Settlement approved; $1,500 penalty ordered in satisfaction of the citation.
• Key point: The judge approved a reduced penalty after considering the roof conditions and the later approved plan.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. FREEMAN COAL
DDATE:
19810610
TTEXT:

~1470
Federal Mine Safty and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Civil Penalty Proceeding
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. LAKE 81-91
PETITIONER
A.O. No. 11-02236-03063V
v.
Crown No. 2 Mine
FREEMAN UNITED COAL MINING
COMPANY, A DIVISION OF
MATERIAL SERVICE CORP.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Appearances: Rafael Alvarez, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, Illinois, for the Petitioner;
Harry M. Coven Esq., Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Koutras

Statement of the Case

This proceeding concerns a proposal for assessment of civil penalty filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, charging the respondent with one alleged violation of mandatory safety standard 30 CFR 75.200. Respondent filed a timely answer contesting the citation and the matter was scheduled for hearing on May 20, 1981, in Terre Haute, Indiana, along with other cases involving these same parties. However, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised me that they had agreed to a settlement of the dispute, and they were afforded an opportunity to present their joint settlement proposal on the record for my consideration. The citation, initial assessment, and proposed settlement amount are as follows:

Citation No. Date Proposed Assessment Settlement

      1005827   11/10/80         $2,000           $1,500

Discussion

The citation in this case was issued after the inspector found that certain room and entry intersection diagonals and crosscuts were driven

~1471
for distances wider than those provided for by the respondent's approved roof control plan. In support of the proposed settlement, petitioner stated that the citation in question was issued approximately one month before respondent's new roof control plan was approved, and that the roof area in question was considered to be in very good condition and was fully roof-bolted. Under the new roof control plan, the area cited as being driven too wide would only have exceeded the plan requirements by approximately 18 inches, and the conditions cited did not result in any accidents or injuries (Tr. 4-9).

In view of the foregoing circumstances, and taking into account all of the statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act, the parties were in agreement that the proposed settlement is reasonable and they requested my approval.

Conclusion

After careful review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments, and information of record in support of the proposed settlement, I conclude and find that it is reasonable and in the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, the settlement is APPROVED.

Order

Respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,500, in satisfaction of the citation in question within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision and order, and upon receipt of payment by the petitioner, this proceeding is DISMISSED.

George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge