Western Sand & Gravel (ALJ decision, February 23, 1993)
Western Sand & Gravel (FMSHRC WEST 92-524-M): Ten-violation settlement approved at $642
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1993 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
Western Sand & Gravel faced ten civil penalty violations at its Tenino Pit. The parties proposed reducing the total penalties from $738 to $642, with nine citations settled at their original $50 amounts and the remaining penalty reduced from $288 to $192. Judge Paul Merlin approved the settlement and ordered payment of $642. He also directed the Secretary to explain penalty reductions more specifically in future settlement motions.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i).
- Outcome: The settlement was approved and a $642 penalty was ordered.
- Key point: Settlement motions must explain why a penalty reduction is appropriate under the statutory penalty criteria.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
: Docket No. WEST 92-524-M
Petitioner
: A. C. No. 45-03119-05509
:
v. :
:
:
WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL,
: Tenino Pit
Respondent
:
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Merlin
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of the civil penalties for ten violations under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The parties have filed a joint motion to approve settlements. A reduction in penalties from $738 to $642 is proposed. Nine of the ten citations involved in this case were assessed $50 and are all non significant and substantial. The parties have agreed to settle these for the original amounts. I approve the findings for these violations and the proposed penalty amounts.
With respect to remaining citation, the Solicitor has agreed to reduce the penalty amount from $288 to $192. I find the $192 penalty reasonable based upon reading of the citation and the statutory criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act. However, no reasons are given in the joint motion to support the recommended penalty. The Solicitor should be aware that in the future she must explicitly disclose why the penalty is appropriate under section 110(i) and explain the reduction in a penalty amount. The mere submission of boiler plate language for a reduction will not suffice.
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlements is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that the operator PAY a penalty of $642 within 30 days of this order.
Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Distribution: (Certified Mail)
Cathy Barnes, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 945, Seattle, WA 98101
A. Don Scarsella, Western Sand & Gravel, P.O. Box 68388, Seattle, Washington 98188
rdj
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.
Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.
- 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