Billy R. Sipple, Employed by Shillelagh Mining Company

Plain-English summary

Billy R. Sipple, employed by Shillelagh Mining Company, was charged under the Mine Act's individual-liability provision for eight alleged violations at the No. 5 Mine. The judge dismissed two allegations during the hearing, and the Secretary later withdrew two more for insufficient evidence. The parties settled the four remaining violations for $2,000, reduced from initial assessments totaling $4,800, with payment due in monthly installments through April 1992. Judge George A. Koutras approved the settlement as reasonable and in the public interest and retained jurisdiction until payment was complete.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.1317(a), 75.1311(a)(1), 75.1311(b)(3), 75.202(b), 75.213(d)(1), and 75.220
• Outcome: Four alleged violations were settled for $2,000, four other allegations were withdrawn, and payment was scheduled in installments.
• Key point: The judge approved a reduced settlement based in part on the respondent's financial hardship and retained jurisdiction until full payment.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. BILLY R. SIPPLE
DDATE:
19910723
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1174

           Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
                  Office of Administrative Law Judges
                         2 Skyline, 10th Floor
                          5203 Leesburg Pike
                     Falls Church, Virginia 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. WEVA 90-177
PETITIONER A.C. No. 46-03875-03547-A
v.
No. 5 Mine
BILLY R. SIPPLE, EMPLOYED BY
SHILLELAGH MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                               DECISION

Appearances: Edward H. Fitch, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia,
for the Petitioner;
Billy R. Sipple, Logan, West Virginia, pro se,
for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Koutras

Statement of the Case

 This proceeding concerns proposals for assessment of civil

penalties filed by the petitioner against the respondent pursuant
to section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, seeking civil penalty assessments in the amount of $4,800,
for eight (8) alleged violations of certain mandatory safety
standards found in Part 75, Title 30, Code of Federal
Regulations. The respondent is charged with "knowingly
authorizing, ordering, or carrying out" the alleged violations.

 The respondent filed an answer contesting the alleged

violations and a hearing was convened in Charleston, West
Virginia on June 5, 1991. The parties appeared and presented
testimony and evidence in support of their respective positions.
In the course of the hearing, the petitioner withdrew its
proposals for assessment of civil penalties for two of the
alleged violations (Citation/Order Nos. 2745972 and 2745973) and
these alleged violations were dismissed from the bench.
Subsequently, on June 19, 1991, petitioner's counsel advised me
that the parties reached a settlement of the case, and the
petitioner has now filed a motion pursuant to Commission Rule 30,
29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the proposed settlement.

Page 3

~1175
The alleged violations, initial assessments, and the proposed
settlement amounts are as follows:
30 C.F.R.
Order No. Date Section Assessment Settlement

  2745972     5/30/89    75.1317(a)        $ 400       Withdrawn
  2745973     6/1/89     75.1311(a)(1)     $ 400       Withdrawn
  2745974     6/1/89     75.1311(b)(3)     $ 400        $ 200
  3235730     6/1/89     75.202(b)         $1,200       $ 850
  3235731     6/1/89     75.213(d)(1)      $1,200       $ 850
  3235732     6/1/89     75.202(b)         $ 400       Withdrawn
  3235733     6/1/89     75.202(b)         $ 400       Withdrawn
  3235737     6/1/89     75.220            $ 400        $ 100
                                           ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ     ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
                                           $4,800       $2,000

 The petitioner has withdrawn two additional alleged

violations (Order Nos. 3235732 and 3235733) on the ground that
insufficient evidence exists to establish that the respondent
knowingly allowed the alleged violative conditions to exist. With
regard to the four remaining alleged violations, the petitioner
has submitted information pertaining to the civil penalty
criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act and states that the
reduced settlement amounts are based on the respondent's
financial hardship as testified to at the hearing.

 The parties have agreed that the settlement payment of

$2,000, will be paid by the respondent in monthly installment due
on the 10th of the month and in accordance with the following
installment schedule:

      $150 per month from July through December 1991

      $300 per month for January, February, and March 1992

      $200 final payment due April 1992

 The parties also agreed that the payment checks or money

orders shall be made payable to the "Mine Safety and Health
Administration", shall include Docket No. WEVA 90-177 and
Assessment No. 46-03875-03547-A, and shall be mailed to MSHA at
P.O. Box 360250M, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251.

                              Conclusion

 After careful review and consideration of the pleadings,

arguments, and submissions in support of the motion to approve
the proposed settlement of this case, I conclude and find that
the proposed settlement disposition is reasonable and in the
public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.30,
the motion filed by the petitioner IS GRANTED, and the settlement
IS APPROVED.

Page 4

~1176
ORDER

 The respondent IS ORDERED to pay the agreed-upon civil

penalty assessments in the aforementioned amounts and in
accordance with the aforementioned payment schedule agreed to by
the parties. This decision will not become final until such time
as full payment is made by the respondent to the petitioner, and
I retain jurisdiction in this matter until payment of all
installments are remitted and received by the petitioner.

 In the event the respondent fails to make full payment, or

otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the settlement,
petitioner is free to file a motion seeking appropriate sanctions
or further action against the respondent, including a reopening
of the case.

                                 George A. Koutras
                                 Administrative Law Judge