Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Atlas Minerals (ALJ decision, August 20, 1984)

Plain-English summary

MSHA cited Atlas Minerals for an alleged violation of a safety standard at its Moab Mill. The parties agreed to change the citation's statutory designation from section 104(d)(1) to section 104(a) while retaining the original $300 penalty. Judge John J. Morris approved their settlement, affirmed the citation as amended, and ordered payment within 40 days. The decision does not describe the underlying safety condition. Its release date is August 20, 1984, although the body refers to an August 23 hearing; both dates are preserved as printed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 57.9-88(a).
• Outcome: Settlement approved; citation designation changed to section 104(a); $300 penalty affirmed.
• Key point: The parties amended the citation's statutory designation without reducing the penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. ATLAS MINERALS
DDATE:
19840820
TTEXT:
~1991

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 84-33-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 42-00800-05504
v.
Moab Mill
ATLAS MINERALS,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: James H. Barkley, Esq., Robert J. Lesnick, Esq., and Peggy Miller, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner;

James A. Holtkamp, Esq., and John A. Snow, Esq., VanCott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Morris

This is a civil penalty proceeding initiated by the petitioner against the respondent in accordance with Section 110(a) of Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a). The civil penalty is for the alleged violation of a mandatory safety standard promulgated pursuant to the Act.

At a hearing in Moab, Utah on August 23, 1984, in related cases the parties advised the judge that they had reached an amicable settlement. The parties now seek approval of their proposed settlement.

Citation 2008174 alleges a violation of 30 C.F.R.
57.9-88(a). The citation proposed an original penalty of $300. The parties now seek to amend the citation by changing its designation from "104-d-1" to "104-a." The parties agree the original penalty should be assessed.

Discussion

In support of the motion petitioner states he agrees with and relies on the assessment made by his Office of Assessments in evaluating the statutory criteria for assessing the penalty.
~1992
I find the proposed settlement is reasonable and it should be approved.

Accordingly, I enter the following:

ORDER

1. The settlement agreement is approved.

2. The citation is amended to change the designation from "104-d-1" to "104-a."

3. Citation 2008174 and the penalty of $300 are affirmed.

4. Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of $300 within 40 days of the date of this order.

John J. Morris
Administrative Law Judge