California Lightweight Pumice, Inc.

Plain-English summary

California Lightweight Pumice reached a settlement with the Secretary in four civil penalty proceedings. The company agreed to pay the penalties originally assessed for the listed citations, totaling $5,368. Judge John J. Morris found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest, approved it, affirmed the citations and proposed penalties, and ordered payment within 60 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 801 and 820(i)
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, the citations and proposed penalties were affirmed, and $5,368 was due within 60 days.
• Key point: The judge approved a settlement after reviewing information tied to the Mine Act's penalty criteria and public-interest requirement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. CALIFORNIA LIGHTWEIGHT PUMICE
DDATE:
19900504
TTEXT:

Page 2

~994
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 89-317-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 04-04602-05515

      v.                              Docket No. WEST 89-360-M
                                      A.C. No. 04-04602-05516

CALIFORNIA LIGHTWEIGHT
PUMICE, INC., Docket No. WEST 89-394-M
RESPONDENT A.C. No. 04-04602-05520

                                      Docket No. WEST 90-21-M
                                      A.C. No. 04-04602-05521

                                      Battle Mountain

                           DECISION

Appearances: Nancy E. Resnick, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, San Francisco,
California,
for Petitioner;
Mr. L. Kenneth Teel, President, California Light-
weight Pumice, Inc., Capistrano Beach, California,
for Respondent.

Before: Judge Morris

 The Secretary of Labor, on behalf of the Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA), charges respondent with violating
safety regulations promulgated under the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act, 30 U.S.C. 801, et seq. (the ACT).

 After notice to the parties, a hearing commenced in Las

Vegas, Nevada, on January 9, 1990. The cases involved in the
hearing were Docket Nos. WEST 89-317-M, WEST 89-360-M, and WEST
89-394-M.

 At the close of the hearing, respondent requested that it be

permitted to present evidence as to its financial condition. In
view of respondent's request, the hearing was reset to April 10,
1990. Subsequently, Docket No. WEST 90-21-M, a newly assigned
case, was also set for a hearing on said date.

Page 3

~995
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, respondent agrees to
pay the penalties originally assessed by the Secretary. The
citations and the original assessments are as follows:

                 Docket No. WEST 89-317-M

 Citation No.                     Assessments

 3286884                           $    84.00
 3069863                               300.00
 3069864                               500.00
 3069866                               300.00

   TOTAL                           $1,184.00

                 Docket No. WEST 89-360-M

 3286892                           $   450.00

                 Docket No. WEST 89-394-M

 3463508                           $   500.00
 3463509                                46.00
 3463510                                20.00
 3463511                               150.00
 3463512                               400.00
 3463513                               400.00

   TOTAL                           $1,516.00

                 Docket No. WEST 90-21-M

 3463959                           $   600.00
 3462890                               600.00
 3462891                                68.00
 3462893                                50.00
 3443076                               500.00
 3443783                               400.00

   TOTAL                           $2,218.00

Page 4

~996
In support of their motion to approve the settlement, the parties
have submitted information relating to the statutory criteria for
assessing penalties as contained in 30 U.S.C. 820(i).

 I have reviewed the proposed settlement and I find it is

reasonable and in the public interest. It should be approved.

   Accordingly, I enter the following:

                           ORDER

   1. The settlement agreement is approved.

 2. The foregoing citations and proposed penalties are

affirmed.

 3. Respondent is ordered to pay to the Secretary the sum of

$5,368.00 within 60 days of the date of this decision.

                                   John J. Morris
                                   Administrative Law Judge