N.L. Baroidadiv/N.L. Industries
N.L. Baroidadiv/N.L. Industries (FMSHRC WEST 85-173-M): Citation vacated and case dismissed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1986 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.
Plain-English summary
MSHA initiated a civil-penalty proceeding against N.L. Baroidadiv/N.L. Industries for an alleged violation of a mandatory safety standard. At the hearing, MSHA moved to vacate its citation and dismiss the petition. Judge John J. Morris granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.51(a).
- Outcome: The citation was vacated and the civil-penalty case was dismissed.
- Key point: The ALJ granted MSHA’s motion to withdraw the citation and end the penalty proceeding.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. N.L. BAROID
DDATE:
19861125
TTEXT:
Page 2
~1852
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 85-173-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 48-01405-05502
v. Lovell Plant
N.L. BAROIDÄDIV/N.L.
INDUSTRIES,
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Appearances: James H. Barkley, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado,
for Petitioner;
Mr. J.D. Fontenot, NL Baroid/NL Industries, Inc.,
Houston, Texas pro se.
Before: Judge Morris
This is a civil penalty proceeding initiated by petitioner
against respondent in accordance with the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The civil penalty
sought here was for the violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.5Ä1(a), a
mandatory standard promulgated pursuant to the Act.
After notice to the parties, a hearing on the merits
commenced in Billings, Montana on November 4, 1986. At the
hearing petitioner moved to vacate his citation and dismiss his
petition.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 11, 29 C.F.R. 27800.11 and for
good cause shown, the motion to vacate is granted.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed.
John J. Morris
Administrative Law Judge
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1986, 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.