Ezel / Agency Decisions / west-2000-424-m-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEST 2000-424-M, WEST 2000-425-M, WEST 2000-426-M, WEST 2000-427-M, WEST 2000-421-M, WEST 2000-422-M, WEST 2000-423-M Decided August 2, 2001 Settled Judge David F. Barbour

Contractors Sand & Gravel, Incorporated

Contractors Sand & Gravel, Incorporated (FMSHRC WEST 2000-424-M): Seven-docket settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2001 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 2001
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

Contractors Sand & Gravel faced seven civil penalty petitions involving citations at the Montague Plant and Scott River Plant. The petitions arose after proposed assessments became final orders when the respondent did not timely request hearings or answer the Secretary's petitions. The Commission remanded the matters so the ALJ could decide whether relief from those final orders was warranted. Judge David F. Barbour approved a comprehensive settlement for $500, plus a separate $50 payment for one citation that the Commission had not remanded, and ordered dismissal after payment. The order notes that the respondent was a small operator and was no longer engaged in mining.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Multiple 30 C.F.R. Part 56 standards, including §§ 56.12025, 56.12008, 56.14107(a), 56.14130(h), 56.14103, 56.5050, 56.14101(a)(2), 56.14132(a), 56.141008, 56.14101(a)(3), 56.14130(c), 56.12004, 56.12013, and 56.12028
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved for $500, plus $50 for one non-remanded citation, with dismissal after payment.
  • Key point: The ALJ approved a comprehensive settlement after the Commission remanded the defaulted penalty assessments for consideration of possible relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1730 K STREET, N.W., Room 6003
WASHINGTON , D. C. 20006-3867
Telephone No.: 202-653-5454
Telecopier No.: 202-653-5030

                                    August 2, 2001

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEST 2000-421-M
Petitioner : A. C. No. 04-04679-05511
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-422-M
: A. C. No. 04-04679-05512
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-423-M
: A. C. No. 04-04679-05513
: A. C. No. 04-04679-05515
:
v. : Mine: Montague Plant
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-424-M
: A. C. No. 04-03404-05513
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-425-M
: A. C. No. 04-03404-05514
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-426-M
: A. C. No. 04-03404-05515
:
: Docket No. WEST 2000-427-M
: A. C. No. 04-03404-05516
CONTRACTORS SAND & GRAVEL, : A. C. No. 04-03404-05517
INCORPORATED, : A. C. No. 04-03404-05519
Respondent : A. C. No. 04-03404-05520
:
: Mine: Scott River Plant

                     DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Barbour

    These cases involve seven petitions for assessment of civil penalty. They arise under

section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. §815(d)). They are
before me on remand from the Commission (23 FMSHRC 570 (June 2001)), and they concern
proposed penalty assessments that became final orders of the Commission either when the
Respondent failed to submit a hearing request to contest the alleged violations or when the
Respondent failed to answer the Secretary's petitions. Several years after most of the defaults

                                            859

were entered, the Respondent requested the Commission reopen the proposed assessments so it
could contest them. The Commission remanded the matters and instructed me to determine
whether relief from the final orders was warranted (23 FMSHRC at 577).

    Following the remand, the parties conferred and reached a comprehensive settlement,

which the Secretary moves that I approve. I have considered the representations and documentation submitted, and I conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set
forth in section 110(i) of the Act. I especially note the Secretary's representations that the
Respondent was a small operator and is no longer engaged in mining.

   The settlement amounts are as follows:

                                     WEST 2000-421-M

Citation/
Order No. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05511
3460096 05/26/93 56.12025 $ 102.00 $ 22.00
3638714 06/08/93 56.12008 50.00 22.00
3638715 06/08/93 56.14107(a) 81.00 22.00

                                     WEST-2000-422-M

Citation/
Order No. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05512
3638716 06/08/93 56.14130(h) $ 50.00 $ 22.00

                                     WEST 2000-423-M

Citation/
Order Nos. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05513
3911910 03/12/93 56.14103 $ 382.00 $ 22.00

A.C. No. 04-04679-05515
3916592 06/07/95 56.5050 50.00 22.00

                                            860


                                             WEST 2000-424-M

Citation/
Order Nos. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05513
3638707 06/07/93 56.14107(a) $ 81.00 $ 22.00
3638708 06/07/93 56.14107(a) 81.00 22.00
3638709 06/07/93 56.12008 102.00 22.00
3638710 06/07/93 56.14107(a) 81.00 22.00
3911923 06/07/93 50.30 90.00 22.00

                                             WEST 2000-425-M

Citation/
Order No. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05514
3638706 06/07/93 56.14130(h) $ 50.00 $ 22.00

                                             WEST 2000-426-M

Citation/
Order Nos. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05515
3638705 06/07/93 56.14101(a)(2) $ 240.00 22.00
3638713 06/07/93 56.14132(a) 50.00 22.00
3638541 08/18/93 56.141008 50.00 22.00
3638542 08/18/93 56.141008 50.00 22.00
3638544 08/18/93 56.14132(a) 50.00 22.00

                                            WEST 2000-427-M

Citation/
Order No. Date 30 C.F.R Assessment Settlement

A.C. No. 04-04679-05516
3638712 06/07/93 56.14101(a)(3) $ 50.00 $ 22.00

     1
       Docket No. WEST 2000-427-M, originally contained Citation No. 4241113, which was issued on June

25, 1997 and which alleged a violation of 30 C.F.R. §56.12028. The Commission declined to remand the proposed
assessment of $50.00 for this alleged violation and the proposed assessment became a final order. During the
settlement negotiations, the Respondent recognized the finality of the order and agreed to pay the penalty in full.

                                                        861

3638546 08/18/93 56.14101(a)(3) 50.00 22.00
3911940 08/18/93 56.14130(c) 50.00 22.00

A.C. No. 04-04679-05517
3910093 05/03/94 56.12025 $ 81.00 $ 22.00
3910094 05/03/94 56.12013 50.00 22.00

A.C. No. 04-04679-05519
4341197 03/05/96 56.12004 $ 102.00 $ 16.00

   Total:                                       $2,023.00            $500.00

           WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is

ORDERED that within 30 days of this order, the Respondent pay a penalty of $500.00 as
specified above. In addition, within the same 30 days, the Respondent is ORDERED to pay a
penalty of $50.00 for the violation of 56.12028, alleged in Citation No. 4341113 (Docket No.
WEST 20000-427-M (A. C. No. 04-03404-05520)).2 Upon receipt of payment, this matter is
DISMISSED.

                                       David F. Barbour
                                       Chief Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

W. Christian Schumann, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203

Eric Schoonmaker, Contractor's Sand & Gravel Supply, Inc., P. O. Box 956, Yreka, CA 96097

Jack Powasnik, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd.,
Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203

/wd

   2
    Payment may be sent to: MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR , PAYMENT OFFICE, P. O. BOX 360250M, PITTSBU RGH, PA 15251.

                                          862

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2001, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.