Columbia Asphalt & Gravel (ALJ decision, July 2, 1986)

Plain-English summary

The Solicitor sought approval of reduced penalties for four citations against Columbia Asphalt & Gravel at Parker Pit. Chief Judge Paul Merlin found that two reductions lacked reasons and that explanations for two others conflicted with the citations. He also noted that the motion claimed no prior violations while the attached penalty record listed 19. He disapproved the settlement motion and ordered the Solicitor to provide the missing information by August 1, 1986. This order did not assess a final penalty or resolve the citations.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: No specific safety standard is identified in the order.
• Outcome: Proposed settlement disapproved; supporting information due August 1, 1986.
• Key point: The judge required explanations for penalty reductions and reconciliation of conflicting citation and violation history details.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. COLUMBIA ASPHALT & GRAVEL DDATE: 19860702 TTEXT:
~1082

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 86-51-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 45-00764-05508

v. Parker Pit

COLUMBIA ASPHALT & GRAVEL,
RESPONDENT

ORDER DISAPPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

Before: Judge Merlin

I am unable to approve the Motion To Approve Settlement filed by the Solicitor on June 30, 1986, because it fails to provide necessary information and contains many inaccuracies.

For Citation No. 2667782 the Solicitor recommends a reduction from $136 to $70, but gives no reasons.

For Citation No. 2667784 he recommends a nominal reduction from $136 to $130, but here again, gives no reasons.

For Citation No. 2667785 a very substantial reduction from $136 to $45 is recommended and in support thereof the Solicitor states that the wiring referred to in the citation was in excellent condition. However, the citation itself states that the electric feed cable to the water pump was deteriorating. Can a deteriorating wire be in excellent condition?

In seeking a reduction from $136 to $45 for Citation No.
26677786 the Solicitor refers to the excellent condition of the wiring (paragraph 3(b)), but as his motion subsequently recognizes, that violation dealt with guarding (paragraph 3(d)).

The Solicitor advises that the operator did not receive any assessed violations during the prior 24 months. However, the printout attached to his penalty petition shows 19 violations.

The Solicitor must explain the foregoing discrepancies before any settlement, much less one like this involving such substantial reductions, is approved.
~1083
This is a simple and routine case. I have difficulty in understanding how the Solicitor could submit such a faulty motion. Such a submission results in extra and unnecessary work for both this Commission and the Solicitor. And of course, it does not further the purposes of the Act.

Finally, I note that the Solicitor filed a Notice of Settlement on February 20, 1986, but did not file his settlement motion until more than four months later. This case has been pending far too long.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that subject settlement motion be Disapproved and that the Solicitor submit the necessary information on or before August 1, 1986.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge