Beaver Creek Coal Company (ALJ decision, June 15, 1989)
Beaver Creek Coal Company (FMSHRC WEST 88-159): Settlement approved and $147 penalty assessed
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1989 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 charged Beaver Creek Coal Company with nine safety violations at the Trail Mountain No. 9 Mine. The Secretary agreed to vacate one combustible-accumulation citation for insufficient evidence, and Beaver Creek agreed to pay the proposed $147 penalty for a second combustible-accumulation citation. Seven recordkeeping citations were issued in error to Beaver Creek and were vacated as to that company after being modified and reissued to its predecessor operator, Arch Minerals. Judge August F. Cetti approved the settlement and ordered payment of $147 within 30 days.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.400
- Outcome: One citation was vacated, one was paid as proposed, and seven recordkeeping citations were vacated as to Beaver Creek; the total penalty was $147.
- Key point: The settlement assigned responsibility for incorrectly issued recordkeeping citations to the predecessor operator and resolved the remaining combustible-accumulation matters.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BEAVER CREEK COAL
DDATE:
19890615
TTEXT:
~1094
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 88-159
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 42-01211-03540
v. Trail Mountain #9 Mine
BEAVER CREEK COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Appearances: Robert J. Murphy, Esq., John J. Matthew, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner;
Charles W. Newcom, Esq., Sherman & Howard, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent;
David M. Arnolds, Esq., Atlantic Richfield Company, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent.
Before: Judge Cetti
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of civil penalty under Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the \"Act\". The Secretary of Labor, on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, (MSHA), charged the operator of the Beaver Creek Coal Company, Trail Mountain Mine #9 (Beaver Creek) with violating nine safety regulations of Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations.
The operator filed a timely appeal contesting the existence of the alleged violations and the appropriateness of the proposed penalties.
The case was set for hearing on the merits at the same place and time as other cases involving the same parties were heard on the merits. At the hearing counsel for the Secretary on the record stated the parties had reached an agreement and the parties jointly moved for approval of the proposed settlement disposition which provides as follows:
Citation No. 3227086
This citation alleges a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.400. The Secretary moved to vacate this citation and its related proposed $98.00 penalty due to an insufficiency of evidence.
~1095
Citation No. 3227087
This citation alleges an accumulation of combustible materials in violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.400. Beaver Creek Coal Company moved to withdraw its contest of the existence of the violation and penalty and pay in full without change the Secretary's $147.00 proposed penalty.
Citation Nos. 3227090, 3227092, 3227093, 3227094, 3227095, 3227096, and 3227098
The Secretary advises that these recordkeeping citations were issued to Beaver Creek Coal Company in error. The Secretary moved to vacate the citations with respect to Beaver Creek. The citations have been modified and reissued to Beaver Creek's predecessor operator of Trial Mountain #9 Mine, Arch Minerals.
Discussion
There was no objection to the motions of the parties. The motions are granted. In support of this proposed disposition of the case the parties submitted information pertaining to the six statutory civil penalty criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act. After careful review and consideration of the pleadings, arguments, and submissions I find that the proposed disposition is reasonable, appropriate, and in the public interest.
ORDER
The joint motion for approval of the agreed settlement disposition is granted. The respondent is directed to pay a civil penalty in the sum of $147.00 within 30 days of the date of this decision.
August F. Cetti
Administrative Law Judge
What applies to your situation today?
This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace