Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Rushton Mining Company (Commission decision, July 9, 1979)

Plain-English summary

Rushton appealed a judge's ruling on three of five violations. It conceded two violations but argued that their $200 and $300 penalties were too high for their gravity. The Commission found the penalty assessments supported by the evidence and the statutory criteria. Rushton also disputed whether a mine pump was a permanent pump that had to be housed in a fireproof structure or area. The Commission upheld the judge's finding that it was permanent and affirmed his decision.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.1107-1(b), 75.1725(a), and 75.1105; the last requires permanent pumps to be housed in fireproof structures or areas.
• Outcome: Three appealed violation rulings affirmed; $200 and $300 penalties left in place for two of them. The third penalty is not stated in this release.
• Key point: The judge's characterization of the pump as permanent was supported by its characteristics and the rule's purpose.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. RUSHTON MINING
DDATE:
19790709
TTEXT:

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
July 9, 1979

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Docket No. PITT 75-399-P
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
IBMA No. 76-37
v.

RUSHTON MINING COMPANY

DECISION

This appeal was pending before the Interior Department Board of Mine Operations Appeals as of March 8, 1978. Accordingly, it is before the Commission for disposition. Section 301 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. $961 (1978).

Administrative Law Judge Sweeney assessed penalties against Rushton Mining Company for five violations of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. 30 U.S.C. $901 et seq. (1976) (amended 1977) ("the 1969 Act"). Rushton appealed the judge's decision regarding three of the violations.

The judge found violations of 30 CFR $75.1107-1(b) and 30 CFR
$75.1725(a), and assessed penalties of $200 and $300, respectively. Rushton does not deny the violations. Rushton asserts, however, that the gravity of the violations does not warrant the penalties assessed. Rushton's arguments do not demonstrate that the judge erred in his conclusions regarding the gravity of the violations. We conclude that the penalties assessed are supported by the evidence and reflect proper consideration of the statutory criteria set forth in section 109(a)(1) of the 1969 Act. The penalties are appropriate and will not be disturbed.

Rushton further argues that the judge's finding of a violation of 30 CFR $75.1105 1/ is not supported by the evidence and must be reversed. Specifically, Rushton argues that the evidence does not support the judge's conclusion that the pump at issue was a "permanent pump" within the meaning of the cited standard. Neither the 1969 Act nor the standards define the term "permanent pump." In resolving this question in the present case, the judge looked to the purposes of the cited standard

1/ 30 CFR $75.1105 provides:

Underground transformer stations, battery-charging stations, substations, compressor stations, shops, and permanent pumps shall be housed in fireproof structures or areas. Air currents used to ventilate structures or areas enclosing electrical installations shall be coursed directly into the return. Other underground structures installed in a coal mine as the Secretary may prescribe shall be of fireproof construction.
~795
and the characteristics of the pump involved. The judge's conclusion that the pump is "permanent" within the meaning of the standard is well-reasoned and supported by the evidence.

Accordingly, the judge's decision is affirmed.
Marian Pearlman Nease, Commissioner