Secretary of Labor v. Earth Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, July 5, 1984)

Plain-English summary

MSHA sought civil penalties from Earth Coal Company for citations at its Lengacher Mine No. 1. At the hearing, the Secretary withdrew a citation under 30 C.F.R. § 77.1605(b) because the cited scraper was outside the regulation's equipment coverage. Judge Gary Melick granted that motion and vacated the citation. After the hearing, the parties proposed a settlement reducing the remaining penalties from $326 to $250. The judge approved the settlement and ordered payment of $150, $50, and $50 for the three remaining citations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 77.1605(b) for the vacated citation; the release does not identify the standards for the three settled citations.
• Outcome: One citation vacated and a $250 settlement approved for three others.
• Key point: The cited scraper was outside the regulation's equipment coverage, and the remaining penalties were resolved by settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. EARTH COAL
DDATE:
19840705
TTEXT:
~1627

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 84-14
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 12-01890-03507
v.
EARTH COAL COMPANY, INC.,
Lengacher Mine No. 1
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Appearances: Miguel J. Carmona, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Chicago, Illinois, for Petitioner;
Mr. Byron W. Terry, Tell City, Indiana, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Melick

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of civil penalty under section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). At hearings in Evansville, Indiana, Petitioner moved to withdraw and vacate Citation No. 2353623 on the grounds that the cited Caterpillar Model 627 Scraper did not come within the scope of equipment covered by the cited regulation, 30 C.F.R. 77.1605(b). The motion was granted at hearing and is now affirmed. Following hearings on the merits, Petitioner filed a motion to approve a settlement agreement and to dismiss the case. A reduction in penalties from $326 to $250 was proposed. I have considered the testimony 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.

WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Respondent pay the following penalties within 30 days of this decision:
~1628
Citation No. 2343622 $ 150
Citation No. 2353624
50
Citation No. 2353625
50

Total $250

Gary Melick
Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge