Secretary of Labor v. Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. (ALJ decision, March 12, 1985)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed a $63 penalty against Pacific Coast Building Products for a power circuit violation at its gypsum quarry. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the company violated 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-17 and that the last two sentences of the citation should be vacated. They also agreed that the operator was not negligent, had a low violation history, and corrected the citation in good faith. Judge John J. Morris assessed a $40 penalty and ordered payment within 40 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 55.12-17, concerning power circuits.
• Outcome: Citation No. 2088401 affirmed with its last two sentences vacated; proposed penalty reduced from $63 to $40.
• Key point: The agreed facts supported the violation but a lower penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. PACIFIC COAST BUILDING
DDATE:
19850312
TTEXT:
~389
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 84-32-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 26-00093-05506

v. Pabco Gypsum-Apex Quarry

PACIFIC COAST BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Appearances: Marshall P. Salzman, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner;
E. David Stroebling, Esq., Las Vegas, Nevada, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Morris

This is a civil penalty proceeding initiated by the petitioner against respondent in accordance with Section 110(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a).

Citation 2088401 alleges respondent violated 30 C.F.R.
55.12-17 relating to power circuits. The Secretary originally assessed a proposed penalty of $63.00 for this violation.

At the hearing the parties stipulated that a violation of the standard occurred. Further, it was agreed that the last two sentences of the citation should be vacated.

The parties further agreed that respondent is a moderate-sized company with a low history of violations. In addition, the citation was abated in good faith.

It was further agreed that the imposition of a penalty would not affect the ability of the company to remain in business. Further, it was agreed there was no negligence on the part of the operator.

Considering all of the statutory criteria, I deem that a civil penalty of $40.00 is appropriate for this violation.
~390
Accordingly, I enter the following:

ORDER

1. Citation 2088401 and a penalty of $40.00 are affirmed.

2. Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of $40.00 within 40 days of the date of this order.

John J. Morris
Administrative Law Judge