Brown Brothers Sand Company

Plain-English summary

Brown Brothers Sand Company operated a small sand mine employing nine to ten people. Judge George A. Koutras affirmed five citations involving an unguarded V-belt drive, a shattered loader windshield, two inoperative parking brakes, and excessive dredge noise. He found the windshield and noise violations significant and substantial, while the other three were non-S&S. The judge accepted the operator's timely good-faith abatement and assessed civil penalties of $20, $40, $20, $20, and $35, for a total of $135. The decision stated that payment within 30 days would dismiss the matters.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. §§ 56.14107(a), 56.14103(b), 56.14101(a)(2), and 56.5050.
• Outcome: All five citations were affirmed, with civil penalties totaling $135.
• Key point: Remote location, use of a loader bucket or transmission to stop equipment, and lack of prior noise testing did not excuse violations of mandatory guarding, braking, windshield, and noise-control standards.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. BROWN BROTHERS SAND
DDATE:
19920123
TTEXT:

Page 2

~190

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SE 91-93-M
Petitioner : A.C. No. 09-00265-05511
v. :
: Docket No. SE 91-663-M
BROWN BROTHERS SAND COMPANY, : A.C. No. 09-00265-05512
Respondent :
: Docket No. SE 91-756-M
: A.C. No. 09-00265-05513
:
: Junction City Mine

                           DECISIONS

Appearances: Michael K. Hagan, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, Atlanta, Georgia, for the
Petitioner;
Carl Brown and Steve Brown, Brown Brothers Sand
Company, Howard, Georgia, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Koutras

              Statement of the Proceedings

 These proceedings concern proposals for assessment of civil

penalties filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant
to section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking civil penalty assessments for
five (5) alleged violations of certain mandatory safety and
health standards found in Part 56, Title 30, Code of Federal
Regulations. Hearings were held in Macon, Georgia and the
parties appeared and participated therein. The parties waived
the filing of posthearing briefs but I have considered their oral
arguments made in the course of the hearings in my adjudication
of these matters.

                            Issues

 The issues presented in these cases are (1) whether the

cited conditions or practices constituted violations of the cited
safety or health standards; (2) whether two of the alleged
violations were Significant and Substantial (S&S); and (3) the
appropriate civil penalty assessments for the cited violations.

Page 3

~191
Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

   1. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977,
   30 U.S.C. 301, et seq.

   2.   Commission Rules, 29 C.F.R.     2700.1 et seq.

   3. Mandatory Safety and Health Standards, Part 56,
   Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations.

                         Stipulations

   The parties stipulated to the following:

   1. The respondent is subject to the Act and to the
   Commission's jurisdiction.

   2. The respondent is a small sand mine operator
   employing nine to ten persons.

   3. The payment of the proposed civil penalty
   assessments will not adversely affect the respondent's
   ability to continue in business.

   4. Petitioner's exhibit P-7, a computer print-out
   reflecting the respondent's history of prior
   violations, accurately reflects two prior citations
   during the period March 26, 1989 through March 25,
   1991.

   5. All of the citations in these proceedings were
   timely abated by the respondent in good faith.

                       Procedural Ruling

 Although Docket No. SE 91-756-M, dealing with the alleged

noise violation (Citation No. 3605258) does not reflect that an
answer was filed by the respondent, I take note of the fact that
the answer filed by the respondent in Docket No. SE 91-663-M,
makes reference to the noise violation. Under the circumstances,
I have accepted this as an answer by the respondent in Docket
No. SE 91-756-M.

                          Discussion

 The contested violations in these proceedings are as

follows:

                     Docket No. SE 91-93-M

 Section 104(a) non-"S&S" Citation No. 3251229, September 24,

1990, cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14107(a), and

Page 4

~192
the condition or practice cited is described as follows:

 The V-belt drive for the pump, located near the shaker
 screen was not guarded to protect persons from
 contacting the moving belts.

                   Docket SE 91-663-M

 Section 104(a) "S&S" Citation No. 3605255, March 26, 1991,

cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14103(b), and the
cited condition states as follows:

 The operator's cab on the John Deere 644CB front end
 loader has a shattered windshield.

 Section 104(a) non-"S&S" Citation No. 3605256, March 26,

1991, cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.14101(a)(2),
and the cited condition is described as follows:

 The park brake on the John Deere 644 CB front-end
 loader will not hold the equipment on the grade it
 travels.

 Section 104(a) non-"S&S" Citation No. 3605257, March 26,

1991, cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R 56.14101(a)(2),
and the cited condition is described as follows:

 The park brake on the John Deere 444 front end loader
 will not hold the equipment on the grade it travels.

                 Docket No. SE 91-756-M

 Section 104(a) "S&S" Citation No. 3605258, March 26, 1991,

cites an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.5050, and the cited
condition is described as follows:

 On day shift March 26, 1991, the dredge operator was
 exposed to mixed noise levels of the dredge (barge) and
 exceeded unity (100%) by 149.71 times, 149.71% as
 measured with a dosimeter. This is equivalent to an 8-
 hour exposure to 93 dBA. Personal hearing protection
 was not being worn. Feasible engineering or
 administrative controls were not being used to
 eliminate the need for hearing protection.

           Petitioner's Testimony and Evidence

                  Docket No. SE 91-93-M

 MSHA Inspector Kenneth Pruitt testified that he has served

as an inspector for 16 years. He confirmed that he issued the
citation on September 24, 1990, after finding that a V-belt drive

Page 5

~193
for a pump motor near the shaker screen was not guarded. He
explained that during a previous inspection there was a cover
over the pump and some maintenance work had been done. The
respondent had cut an old tank in half and installed it over the
pump and motor as a guard. However, there were two openings cut
into the cover to provide access to this equipment. In the event
someone were to go into the tank area, they would be exposed to
the unguarded V-belt and pinch points and their hand or clothing
could be caught in these pinch points.

 Mr. Pruitt stated that he considered it unlikely that an

injury would result since the pump was located in an isolated
area where no one works on a regular basis. Accordingly, he
considered the violation to be non-S&S. However, he believed
that if someone contacted these unguarded pinch-point with their
finger or hand they would likely sustain permanently disabling
injuries.

  Mr. Pruitt stated that he based his moderate negligence

finding on the fact that the respondent had all of the other
pumps at the facility properly guarded. Abatement was achieved
by blocking the area going into the tank and pump area so that no
one could enter. He confirmed that there was a two to two and
one-half feet distance between the tank and the opening and that
the exception found in section 56.14107(b) did not apply in this
case.

 On Cross-examination, Mr. Pruitt confirmed that during a

prior inspection visit there was a metal type enclosure or cover
placed over the motor and pump in question. Although the cover
was over the equipment, the two openings would allow anyone to
walk into the area where the pump and motor were located. He
also confirmed that someone would have to walk around the motor
to reach the unguarded V-belt drive area. He agreed that if
there were no openings exposing the belt drive the large tank
placed over the equipment would be an adequate guard.

                 Docket No. SE 91-663-M

 MSHA Inspector Darrell Brennan testified that he has been so

employed for 13 years. He confirmed that he issued Citation
No. 3605255 (Exhibit P-2), on March 26, 1991, after finding that
the windshield on the loader was completely shattered and loose
at the top of the frame and that the rubber grommet around the
windshield frame was the only means of holding it secure. The
loader was being used by an employee in the pit and Mr. Brennan
confirmed that he climbed on and in the loader in order to
inspect the windshield. He believed that the loosely fitted
windshield could have fallen out while the machine was being
operated, and if it did, the operator could sustain cuts from the
jagged glass edges. Although the condition of the windshield
obscured the visibility of the operator, the greater hazard was

Page 6

~194
the fact that the operator could sustain cuts on his hands in the
event the windshield broke and fell in on him while operating the
machine.

 Mr. Brennan stated that he based his significant and

substantial finding on his belief that it was reasonably likely
that the windshield could fall in on the operator, and if it did,
it would result in severe cuts to the operator's hands. He
confirmed that abatement was achieved by removing the windshield.
He also confirmed that he based his moderate negligence finding
on his belief that the equipment operator and the respondent
should have observed the condition of the windshield and taken
steps to correct the condition.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Brennan confirmed that the rubber

grommet which is used to hold the windshield secure and in place
is normally used for that purpose regardless of the condition of
the windshield.

 Inspector Brennan stated that he issued Citation

No. 3605256, on March 26, 1991, after determining that the
parking brake on the same loader with the shattered windshield
would not hold the machine (exhibit P-3). The loader was coming
out of the pit on a slight incline, and after it was stopped, the
operator applied the parking brake and it would not hold or stop
the machine. The loader was empty, and the operator initially
stopped the machine with the service brakes. He took it out of
gear and applied the parking brake and it would not hold the
machine.

 Mr. Brennan stated that he considered the violation to be

non-"S&S" because the service brakes were operational and could
stop the machine, and there was no hazard exposure to many
people. He based his moderate negligence finding on his belief
that the equipment operator and the respondent should have been
aware that maintenance was needed and that the brake condition
should have been reported. Mr. Brennan confirmed that when he
next returned to the mine the condition was abated and he
terminated the citation. He believed that the respondent
installed a new brake cable and brake shoes.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Brennan stated that the service

brakes were workable. He confirmed that the loader bucket could
be dropped to stop the machine and he recalled that the operator
applied the service foot brake and dropped the bucket at the time
he stopped the machine so that he could inspect it.

 Inspector Brennan stated that he issued Citation No. 3605257

on March 26, 1991, (exhibit P-4) after inspecting another loader
and finding that the parking brake would not hold the machine
when it was applied by the operator. He confirmed that this
loader was also operating in the pit and that the service foot

Page 7

~195
brakes were operable. He considered the violation to be non-S&S,
because an injury was unlikely. However, in the event of injury
resulting from the machine running into someone, it would result
in "lost workday or restricted duty" type injuries. He believed
the violation was the result of moderate negligence because the
equipment operator should have been aware of the condition and
reported it so that repairs could be made. A new parking brake
cable and brake shoes were installed to abate the violation.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Brennan stated that he did not

further inspect the loader to determine whether it was equipped
with a transmission parking device.

                 Docket No. SE 91-756-M

 Inspector Brennan testified that he issued Citation

No. 3605258, on March 26, 1991, after determining that the
dredge operator on the barge used to suck up sand was exposed to
noise levels in excess of the noise limits stated in the cited
mandatory standard section 56.5050. Mr. Brennan stated that he
conducted a noise survey for the full eight hour work shift from
7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., using a Quest noise dosimeter. The
device was clipped to the shirt collar near the ear of the
employee operating the dredge. He checked the device readings
periodically during the testing period. The results of his test
are shown in exhibit P-6.

 Mr. Brennan stated that the sound level meter readings

varied from 90 to 96 dBA's, but that the average noise exposure
during the shift was equivalent to an eight hour exposure of 93
dBA's. This exceeded the required and acceptable level of 90
dBA's pursuant to section 56.5050. He confirmed that the source
of the noise was the dredge electric pump motor, and that the
operator was not wearing personal hearing protection.

 Mr. Brennan stated that the violation was abated after the

respondent constructed an insulated plywood barrier and installed
it between the electric motor and the dredge operator. The
measured noise exposure after this installation was reduced to
86.5 dBA's, and he attributed this to the barrier. He estimated
the cost of construction of the barrier at approximately $100,and
he did not believe that this expense was out of proportion to the
reduced noise exposure which was achieved.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Brennan stated that he had no

knowledge as to whether any previous noise studies or tests were
never made at the respondent's mining operation. He did not know
the cost of the dosimeter which he used at the time of the
inspection, and indicated that such a device could be purchased
at Radio Shack for approximately $20.

Page 8

~196
In response to further questions, Mr. Brennan stated that he
considered the violation to be significant an substantial because
it was reasonably likely and proven that long exposure to
excessive noise levels can cause permanent hearing loss. He
confirmed that he did not test any other equipment for noise and
believed that the plant was down for maintenance at the time of
his inspection. He confirmed that the violation was the result
of moderate negligence and that the respondent should have been
aware of the noise requirements found in section 56.5050. He
further stated that the respondent had the option of using
administrative controls to limit the noise exposure by rotating
different employees to operate the dredge. As far as he knew,
the employee who he tested was the only person regularly assigned
to the dredge.

           Respondent's Testimony and Evidence

                  Docket No. SE 91-93-M

 Carl Brown, the operator, produced three photographs of the

cited pump V-belt drive in question (exhibits R-1 through R-3).
Mr. Brown stated that the cover which was previously placed over
this equipment was placed there to protect it from the sun which
at times generated a lot of heat. The tank enclosure was
installed to guard the pump and V-belt drive and the doors were
cut out and a fan installed to provide cooling. Mr. Brown was of
the opinion that the metal enclosure previously placed over this
equipment provided adequate guarding. He also pointed out that
the area in question is a remote area and that "not even a
rabbit" could get caught in the cited V-belt drive.

 On cross-examination, Mr. Brown stated that the V-belt drive

in question is visible and accessible through the doorway opening
shown in photographic exhibit R-3, and that the wire mesh
enclosure shown in exhibit R-2 was installed as a guarding device
to abate the citation.

                 Docket No. SE 91-663-M

 Carl Brown testified that the cited John Deere 444 loader

was purchased approximately 10 years ago as a used machine and
that the parking brake was inoperative. He stated that parts
were purchased at that time and the parking brake was repaired.
He maintained that the loader operator does not use the parking
brake and that the loader bucket is routinely dropped when the
loader operator parks the machine or stops it. He also indicated
that the loader transmission has a park mode which is used to
hold the machine.

 With respect to the cited 664 CB loader, Mr. Brown stated

that the loader is rusty, sandy, and wet and that this affects
the parking brake. He produced a photograph of the interior

Page 9

~197
braking pedals and devices to support his description of the
machine (exhibit R-2). He also indicated that the parking brake
is not used and that the operator drops the bucket to hold the
machine.

 With regard to the cited loader windshield condition,

Mr. Brown produced three photographs of the loader in question
(Exhibit R-1). He took the position that the condition of the
windshield did not obstruct the vision of the operator. He
disagreed that the windshield was totally shattered, and he
described the conditions shown in the photographs as cracks. He
also did not believe that the windshield could fall out and
shatter and he stated that when it was removed from the machine
it came out intact and in one piece, and that it was "safety
glass".

                 Docket No. SE 91-756-M

 With regard to the cited noise violation, Mr. Brown

suggested that he was not aware of the noise requirements found
in the cited regulation and he stated that he did not have a
dosimeter to conduct any noise exposure tests. He further stated
that MSHA inspectors have not previously tested his equipment for
noise and he believed that an inspector should first inform him
of what is required for compliance rather than issuing him
citations and fines for violations. He also believed that noise
from trains which pass by his property are louder than the noise
from the cited dredge motor.

                Findings and Conclusions

                  Citation No. 3251229

 I conclude and find that the unrebutted and credible

evidence presented by the petitioner establishes a violation of
mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 56.14107(a). Although the
respondent made an initial effort to guard the cited pump V-belt
drive, the testimony of the inspector and the photographs
presented by the respondent establish that the two openings in
the tank enclosing the pump exposed the unguarded pinch points
and presented a hazard to anyone who may have inadvertently come
in contact with these moving parts. The standard requires that
such moving machine parts be guarded to prevent persons from
contacting the exposed drive. While it is true that the cited
equipment was located in a remote area where employees did not
routinely work or travel, and mitigates the gravity, this is no
defense to the violation. The citation IS AFFIRMED.

                    Citation 3605255

 In this instance, the respondent is charged with a violation

of 30 C.F.R. 56.14103(b), because of the cited condition of the

Page 10

~198
windshield on the front-end loader. The standard requires the
replacement or removal of damaged self-propelled mobile equipment
windows which obscure visibility necessary for safe operation, or
create a hazard to the equipment operator.

 Although the citation written by the inspector states that

it was "shattered" and does not reflect whether the condition
posed a visibility problem,or created a hazard to the equipment
operator, the inspector testified that his principal concern was
that the shattered windshield, which he personally inspected and
observed and found to be loosely fitted in the frame and held
into place by a rubber grommet, could have fallen in on the
equipment operator and cut his hands.

 The respondent's defense is that the windshield condition

did not obscure the operator's visibility. The respondent also
maintained that since the damaged windshield was removed in one
piece to abate the citation, it was unlikely that it would fall
in on the operator and that it did not pose a hazard.

 The photographic exhibits submitted by the respondent

reflect that the operator has a clear view out of the window from
his position in the cab. Accordingly, I conclude and find that
the condition of the windshield did not obscure his visibility.

 After viewing the photographs, I find that the windshield

was shattered at the top and contained several large cracks and
"pitted" areas along the entire surface, particularly at the
bottom immediately in front of the steering wheel where the
operator is seated. In view of these conditions, I conclude and
find that they created a hazard to the operator while he was
seated behind the windshield while operating the loader in the
pit. I further conclude and find that given the condition of the
windshield, as shown in the photographs, it was reasonably likely
that the loosely fitted, cracked, and shattered windshield could
have fallen in on the operator while the loader was operating in
the pit, exposing him to a hazard and placing him at risk. Under
the circumstances, I conclude and find that a violation has been
established and the citation IS AFFIRMED.

            Citation Nos. 3605256 and 3605257

 The credible testimony and evidence presented by the

petitioner establishes that the parking brakes which were
installed on the two cited front end loaders would not hold the
empty equipment when the brakes were applied by the operator on
the sight pit grades. The cited mandatory section
56.14101(a)(2), provides that if self-propelled mobile equipment
is equipped with parking brakes, the brakes must be capable of
holding the equipment with typical loads on the maximum grade it
travels. In these instances, the brakes would not hold the
loaders, which were empty, on slight pit grades.

Page 11

~199

 The respondent's defense is that the loader's were subjected

to wear and tear and that one or both of them were equipped with
transmissions which had a stopping or parking mode, and that the
buckets are routinely dropped to prevent the loaders from moving
is rejected. The standard does not provide for the use of
transmissions or dropped buckets to hold a loader which is
equipped with a parking brake. The parking brake must be
operable and capable of holding the machine, independent of any
other devices. In this case, it is clear that the parking brakes
would not hold the loaders, and that they did not function as
they were obviously intended to function when they were installed
on the equipment. Under the circumstances, I conclude and find
that the violations have been established, and the citations ARE
AFFIRMED.

                    Citation No. 3605258

 I conclude and find that the credible and unrebutted

evidence presented by the petitioner, including the noise survey
test results, supports the inspector's finding that the dredge
operator was exposed to noise levels in excess of the
requirements found in the cited standard section 30 C.F.R.
56.5050. Accordingly, the citation IS AFFIRMED

Significant and Substantial Violations

 A "significant and substantial" violation is described in

section 104(d)(1) of the Mine Act as a violation "of such nature
as could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause
and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard."
30 C.F.R. 814(d)(1). A violation is properly designated
significant and substantial "if, based upon the particular facts
surrounding the violation there exists a reasonable likelihood
that the hazard contributed to will result in an injury or
illness of a reasonably serious nature." Cement Division,
National Gypsum Co., 3 FMSHRC 822, 825 (April 1981).

 In Mathies Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 1, 3-4 (January 1984), the

Commission explained its interpretation of the term "significant
and substantial" as follows:

        In order to establish that a violation of a
   mandatory safety standard is significant and
   substantial under National Gypsum the Secretary of
   Labor must prove: (1) the underlying violation of a
   mandatory safety standard; (2) a discrete safety
   hazard--that is, a measure of danger to safety-
   contributed to by the violation; (3) a reasonable
   likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result
   in an injury; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that the
   injury in question will be of a reasonably serious
   nature.

Page 12

~200
In United States Steel Mining Company, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 1125,
1129, the Commission stated further as follows:

        We have explained further that the third element
   of the Mathies formula "requires that the Secretary
   establish a reasonable likelihood that the hazard
   contributed to will result in an event in which there
   is an injury." U.S. Steel Mining Co., 6 FMSHRC 1834,
   1836 (August 1984). We have emphasized that, in
   accordance with the language of section 104(d)(1), it
   is the contribution of a violation to the cause and
   effect of a hazard that must be significant and
   substantial. U.S. Steel Mining Company, Inc., 6 FMSHRC
   1866, 1868 (August 1984); U.S. Steel Mining Company,
   Inc., 6 FMSHRC 1573, 1574-75 (July 1984).


 In United States Steel Mining Company, Inc., 7 FMSHRC 327,

(March 1985), the Commission reaffirmed its previous holding in
U.S. Steel Mining Co., 6 FMSHRC 1834, 1836 (August 1984) that it
is the contribution of a violation to the cause and effect of a
hazard that must be significant and substantial, and that a
determination of the significant and substantial nature of a
violation must be made in the context of continued normal mining
operations, including the question of whether if left uncor-
rected, the cited condition would reasonably likely result in an
accident or injury.

                   Citation No. 3605255

 I conclude and find that the has not rebutted the credible

testimony of the inspector in support of his "S&S" finding
concerning the windshield condition on the John Deere 644 CB
front-end loader. I find that the inspector's testimony supports
a reasonable conclusion that in the normal course of operating
the loader in the pit area, the loader operator was exposed to a
hazard in the likely event that the loosely fitted and broken
windshield fell in on him while seated at the operator's control.
If this occurred, I find that it was reasonable likely that the
loader operator would sustain cuts of a reasonably serious
nature. Under the circumstances, the inspector's "S&S" finding
IS AFFIRMED.

                   Citation No. 3605258

 I conclude and find that the inspector's credible and

unrebutted testimony that long term exposure to excessive noise
levels can result in permanent hearing loss support his "S&S"
finding. The unrebutted evidence reflects that the dredge
operator who was tested was the only person regularly assigned to
the dredge, and he was not wearing personal hearing protection,
and no administrative controls were being used. Given the fact

Page 13

~201
that the evidence suggests that the dredge operator had not
previously been tested, and that prior noise surveys were not
conducted at the mine site, I believe one can reasonably conclude
that he was probably exposed to excessive noise levels over a
relatively long period of time. Under the circumstances, the
inspector's "S&S" finding IS AFFIRMED.

Size of Business and Effect of Civil Penalty Assessments on the
Respondent's Ability to Continue in Business

 The parties stipulated that the respondent is a small mine

operator and that the payment of the civil penalty assessments
proposed in these proceedings will not adversely affect its
ability to continued in business. I adopt these stipulations as
my findings in these proceedings.

               History of Prior Violations

 The evidence reflects that the respondent was served with

two single penalty citations during the period March 26, 1989,
through March 25, 1991, and paid a civil penalty assessment of
$20 for one of these violations. The second violation is the
contested Citation No. 3251229, which is the subject of Docket
No. SE 91-93-M. I conclude and find that for purposes of the
instant proceedings, the respondent has a good compliance history
and I have taken this into account.

                         Gravity

 Based on the inspector's gravity and non-S&S findings with

respect to Citation Nos. 3251229, 3605256, and 3605257, I
conclude that these violations were non-serious . With regard to
Citation Nos. 3605255 and 3605258, concerning the condition of
the loader windshield and the dredge operator's noise exposure, I
agree with the inspector's gravity findings and conclude that
these were serious violations.

                       Negligence

 I agree with the inspector's moderate negligence findings

with respect to all of the contested citations, and I conclude
that all of the violations resulted from the respondent's failure
to exercise reasonable care.

                  Good Faith Abatement

 The parties stipulated that all of the violations in these

proceedings were timely abated by the respondent in good faith. I
adopt the stipulations as my findings.

Page 14

~202
Civil Penalty Assessments

 Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, and taking

into account the civil penalty assessment criteria found is
section 110(i) of the Act, I conclude and find that the following
civil penalty assessments are reasonable and appropriate for the
violations which have been affirmed.

Docket No. SE 91-93-M

   Citation No.     Date      30 C.F.R. Section        Assessment

     3251229      9/24/90         56.14107(a)               $20

Docket No. SE 91-663-M

   Citation No.     Date      30 C.F.R. Section        Assessment

     3605255      3/26/91             56.14103(b)           $40
     3605256      3/26/91             56.14101(a)           $20
     3605257      3/26/91             56.14101(a)(2)        $20

Docket No. SE 91-756-M

   Citation No.     Date      30 C.F.R. Section        Assessment

     3605258        3/26/91           56.5050              $35

                              ORDER

 The respondent IS ORDERED to pay civil penalty assessments

in the amounts shown above for the citations which have been
affirmed. Payment is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30) days
of the date of these decisions, and upon receipt of payment these
matters are dismissed.
George A. Koutras
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Michael K. Hagan, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, Room 339, 1371 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA
30367 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Carl Brown, Brown Brothers Sand Company, Box 22, Howard, GA
31039 (Certified Mail)

/ml