Garrick Gravel Incorporated (ALJ decision, June 13, 1988)

Garrick Gravel Incorporated (FMSHRC WEST 88-95-M): Three citations affirmed with $357 penalty

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEST 88-95-M
Decided
June 13, 1988
Presiding judge
Outcome
Citations affirmed
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-20

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1988 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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1988
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Garrick Gravel Incorporated admitted three safety violations but contested the proposed penalties. After a hearing at which the Secretary presented evidence and the company did not appear, Judge August F. Cetti found the violations proven and found the proposed penalty of $119 for each citation appropriate. The three citations were affirmed, with a total penalty of $357.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 56.12001, 56.12025, and 56.12013
  • Outcome: All three citations were affirmed, with $357 in total civil penalties.
  • Key point: The judge upheld the proposed penalties after the operator admitted the violations and did not respond to the notice of intention to decide the case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL V. GARRICK GRAVEL
DDATE:
19880613
TTEXT:


Page 2

~729

FMSHRC-DC
JUNE 13, 1988

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. WEST 88-95-M Petitioner A.C. No. 24-01804-05502

v. Garrick Gravel

GARRICK GRAVEL INCORPORATED,
Respondent

DECISION

Appearances: Margaret A. Miller, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner; No appearance was made on Respondent's behalf.

Before: Judge Cetti

The Secretary of Labor, on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), charges Respondent with violation of three safety regulations promulgated under Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.S.C. $ 801 et seq., (the Act).

This proceeding was initiated by the Secretary with the filing of a proposal for assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $119 for each of the three violations in the total amount of $357. The Respondent filed a timely appeal admitting the violations alleged in the three citations but contesting the amount of the proposed penalties.

After notice to the parties by certified mail as to time and place of hearing, a hearing was held in the above-captioned case on May 10, 1988. The Secretary was represented by Margaret A. Miller, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent.

The Secretary's request that the record be opened to present documentary and oral evidence was granted.

Richard C. Ferreira, a mine inspector employed by MSHA, inspected the Garrick Gravel plant on September 15, 1987. As a result of that inspection he issued Citation Nos. 2649490, 2649491 and 2649492 to the Respondent, Garrick Gravel Incorporated, for the violation of 30 C.F.R. $ 56.12001, $ 56.12025 and $ 56.12013.


Page 3

~730
At the hearing oral and documentary evidence was presented fully justifying the $119 proposed civil penalty for each of the violations. The mine inspector testified that at no time during his September 1987 inspection was anyone told that no penalties would be assessed on the violations.

On May 16, 1988 the undersigned Judge issued a notice of intention to issue a decision to uphold the violations and assess the Secretary's proposed civil penalty of $119 for each of the three violations in the total amount of $357 unless good cause to the contrary be shown in writing within 10 days. No response to the notice of intention has been received.

In concluding that the Secretary's proposed $119 penalty for each of the violations is the appropriate penalty, I have considered the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Commission has jurisdiction to decide this case.

2. Respondent violated the mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R.
$ 56.12001 as alleged in Citation No. 2649490.

3. Respondent violated the mandatory safety standard, 30 C.F.R.
$ 56.12025 as alleged in Citation No. 2649491.

4. Respondent violated the mandatory safety standard, 30 C.F.R.
$ 56.12013 as alleged in Citation No. 2649492.

5. The appropriate penalty for each of the violations is $119.

ORDER

Citations Nos. 2649490, 2649491, 2649492 are affirmed and the Respondent is ordered to pay a civil penalty of $357.00 to the Secretary within 30 days of the date of this decision.

August F. Cetti
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Margaret A. Miller, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1585 Federal Office Building, 1961 Stout Street, Denver, CO 80294 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Norman L. Garrick, President, Garrick Gravel Incorporated, P.0. Box 2966, Missoula, MT 59806 (Certified Mail)

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