Moltan Company (ALJ decision, June 27, 1989)

Moltan Company (FMSHRC SF 89-51-M): Settlement approval denied pending information

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
SF 89-51-M
Decided
June 27, 1989
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-17

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1989 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1989
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This ruling approved one citation settlement while leaving the other citation open. It did not end the case or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

This civil penalty proceeding involved two citations at Moltan Company's mine. Judge Paul Merlin approved a $20 settlement for Citation No. 3253027. He declined to approve the proposed reduction of Citation No. 03252473 from $98 to $20 because the record described exposure to bare 480-volt terminals and did not adequately support the Solicitor's representation that an accident was unlikely. The Solicitor was ordered to provide additional information within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: The decision does not state a regulatory section.
  • Outcome: The $20 settlement for Citation No. 3253027 was approved. Approval of the proposed settlement for Citation No. 03252473 was withheld pending additional information.
  • Key point: A settlement recommendation involving exposed 480-volt electrical parts must provide enough support for the judge to evaluate the likelihood and seriousness of an accident.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

June 27, 1989

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SF 89-51-M
Petitioner : A. C. No. 40-02968-05502
:
v. : Moltan Company
:
MOLTAN COMPANY,
:
Respondent :
DISAPPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
PARTIAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Merlin

This case involves two violations. Citation No. 3253027 was originally assessed at $20 and I approve the settlement for this item.

However, I am unable to approve the recommended settlement for Citation No. 03252473 which was originally assessed at $98 and for which $20 now is the recommended settlement. The Solicitor advises as follows regarding this item:

"* * * the No. 1 cooler control electri- cal cabinet's three circuit breakers and six starter relays could only be operated and/or reset by opening the cabinet door and reaching inside the cabinet. Employees thus exposed themselves to the bare 480 volt terminals and conductor ends inside the cabinet."

I recently considered a comparable situation in A. H. Smith Stone Company, 11 FMSHRC [illegible], dated June 22, 1989, wherein it was shown that 480 volts would cause serious injury or death. A penalty of $1,800 was assessed in that case. The Solicitor has provided no basis for her representation that in this instance occurrence of an accident would be unlikely.

The parties should be aware that I have repeatedly held that significant and substantial is not synonymous with gravity for purposes of determining an appropriate penalty assessment. A. H. Smith Stone Company, supra.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the $20 settlement for Citation No. 3253027 be APPROVED and that the operator pay $20 within 30 days from the date of this order.

It is further ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this order the Solicitor submit information sufficient to support her settlement recommendation for Citation No. 3252473.

[illegible] Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Enclosure:

Distribution:

G. Blaine Smith, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville, TN 37215 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Edward J. Lucas, Moltan Company, Post Office Box 91, Middletown, KY 38052 (Certified Mail)

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, 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