Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Palmer Coking Coal Company (ALJ decision, September 28, 1983)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary asked to settle a citation against Palmer Coking Coal Company for the original $20 assessment. The citation concerned an inoperative automatic warning device on a dozer at the company's surface mine. Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul Merlin found that the motion did not explain the operator's negligence or the gravity of the condition. He denied approval and gave the Secretary 30 days to provide facts justifying the proposed amount. The case would be assigned for hearing if that information did not arrive, and this order assessed no penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: Not numbered in this order.
• Outcome: Proposed $20 settlement denied pending information on negligence and gravity.
• Key point: Prompt abatement alone did not establish that the violation was too minor to warrant more than $20.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. PALMER COKING COAL
DDATE:
19830928
TTEXT:
~1642

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 83-93
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 45-02150-03502

v. Section 12 - McKay
Surface Mine
PALMER COKING COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

DENIAL OF SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

The Solicitor has filed a motion to approve settlement of the one violation involved in this proceeding for the original assessment of $20. I cannot approve the proposed settlement on the basis of the information submitted to date.

The citation was issued because the automatic warning device on a dozer was inoperative. The Solicitor advises that the operator is small in size with a small history of violations. She further reports that the condition was abated in good faith and that payment will not impair the operator's ability to continue in business. However, the Solicitor provides no information about negligence or gravity. She merely refers to the inspector's statement and the fact that the inspector would testify the hazard was immediately abated. Abatement is one thing and gravity is another. A proposed settlement of $20 would appear to denote a lack of gravity. Based upon the record as it now stands I could not find a lack of gravity.

I recently approved a settlement motion from this Regional Solicitor's office, but I had difficulty in doing so because all the requisite information was not furnished. My approval was based on my own reading and evaluation of the citation. See United States Antimony Corp., WEST 83-98-M (August 29, 1983). Other Regional Solicitor's routinely provide the necessary information. I cannot approve the settlement in this case without an explanation from the Solicitor regarding negligence and gravity sufficient to justify the penalty amount she proposes.
~1643
Accordingly, the settlement motion is Denied and the Solicitor is Ordered to submit the necessary information within 30 days from the date of this order. If the information is not forthcoming, the case will be assigned for hearing.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge