Garden Creek Pocahontas Company (ALJ decision, May 19, 1993)

Garden Creek Pocahontas Company (FMSHRC VA 92-188): Settlement approved for conveyor citation

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
VA 92-188
Decided
May 19, 1993
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-14

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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 1993
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.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. 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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

This civil penalty proceeding involved one alleged violation of a mandatory safety standard at Garden Creek Pocahontas Company's VP-6 Mine. The citation concerned a belt conveyor that periodically started unexpectedly while idled in sequence mode. The parties settled the proposed $189 penalty for $136, and the Secretary stated that the operator was making good-faith efforts to correct the problem, reducing the apparent negligence. Judge David F. Barbour approved the settlement and ordered payment of $136, after which the proceeding was to be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.1102
  • Outcome: The proposed $189 penalty was reduced by settlement to $136, with dismissal after payment.
  • Key point: Evidence that an operator knew about a malfunction and was making good-faith efforts to correct it supported reducing the proposed penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. GARDEN CREEK POCAHONTAS
DDATE:
19930519
TTEXT:


Page 2

~915

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. VA 92-188
Petitioner : A.C. No. 44-04517-03693
v. :
: Mine: VP-6
GARDEN CREEK POCAHONTAS :
COMPANY,
:
Respondent :

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Barbour

Statement of the Proceeding

This proceeding concerns proposals for assessment of a civil penalty 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 a civil penalty assessment for one alleged violation of a certain mandatory safety standard found in Part 75, Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. The Respondent filed a timely answer denying the alleged violation.

The parties now have decided to settle the matter, and they have filed a motion pursuant to Commission Rule 30, C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the proposed settlement. Th citation, initial assessment, and the proposed settlement amount is as follows:

30 C.F.R.
Citation No. Date Section Assessment Settlement 4002121 08/05/92 75.1102 $189 $136

In support of the proposed settlement disposition of this case, the Petitioner has submitted information pertaining to the six statutory civil penalty criteria found in Section 110(i) of the Act, included information regarding Respondent's size and ability to continue in business and history of previous violations.

In particular, with regard to Citation No. 4002121, Petitioner notes that the violation concerned the malfunctioning of Respondent's belt conveyor which was periodically starting erroneously when being idled on the sequence mode. Petitioner asserts that unbeknownst to the inspector, Respondent was fully aware of the problem and was making good faith attempts to correct it. Thus, Respondent's negligence was less than supposed


Page 3

by the inspector.


Page 4

~916
CONCLUSION

After review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve the proposed settlement of this case, I find that approval of the suggested reduction in the penalty assessed for the subject violation is warranted and the proposed settlement disposition is reasonable and in the public interest. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, the motion IS GRANTED, and the settlement is APPROVED.

ORDER

Respondent IS ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the settlement amount shown above in satisfaction of the violation in question. Payment is to be made to MSHA within thirty (30) days of the date of this proceeding and upon receipt of payment, this proceeding is DISMISSED.

David F. Barbour
Administrative Law Judge
(703)756-5232

Distribution:

James V. Blair, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 516, Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified Mail)

Marshall S. Peace, Esq., 201 W. Vine Street, Lexington, KY 40507 (Certified Mail)
\epy

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