Maple Meadow Mining Company

Plain-English summary

Maple Meadow Mining Company was cited for accumulations of loose coal and coal dust in several mine locations. The Secretary initially proposed a $4,200 penalty and alleged that a fatality was highly likely, while the company disputed the gravity assessment. Judge George A. Koutras approved a settlement that changed the gravity finding to reasonably likely and set the penalty at $2,000. The citation was affirmed as modified, with payment due within 30 days and dismissal after payment.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 C.F.R. § 75.400
• Outcome: The S&S citation was modified to a reasonably-likely gravity finding and affirmed with a $2,000 settlement penalty.
• Key point: Settlement may modify the gravity finding when the record and the parties' explanation support a lower assessment.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. MAPLE MEADOW MINING
DDATE:
19930329
TTEXT:

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 92-1025
Petitioner : A.C. No. 46-03374-03732
v. :
: Maple Meadow Mine
MAPLE MEADOW MINING COMPANY, :
Respondent :

               DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Koutras

                      Statement of the Case

 This is a civil penalty proceeding filed by the petitioner

against the respondent pursuant to section 110(a) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 820(a), seeking a
civil penalty assessment of $4,200, for an alleged violation of
mandatory safety standard 30 C.F.R. 75.400, as stated in a
section 104(a) significant and substantial (S&S) Citation No.
3731402, issued on April 14, 1992.

 The respondent filed a timely answer and contest, and the

case was scheduled for hearing in Charleston, West Virginia, on
March 17, 1993. However, the parties agreed to settle the
matter, and the petitioner has filed a motion pursuant to
Commission rule 30, 29 C.F.R. 2700.30, seeking approval of the
proposed settlement. The respondent has agreed to pay a penalty
assessment of $2,000, in settlement of the violation.

 In support of the proposed settlement, the petitioner has

submitted information pertaining to the six statutory civil
penalty assessment criteria found in section 110(i) of the Act, a
discussion of the violation in question, and a reasonable
justification for the reduction of the initial proposed penalty.

 The petitioner states that the citation was issued because

of accumulations of loose coal and coal dust in various locations
inby the section dumping point and along the pillar lines in
crosscuts in the area. The inspector found a moderate degree of
negligence on the part of the respondent, and because of the
extent of the accumulations he determined that it was highly
likely that a fatality would occur.

 Although the respondent does not contest the fact of

violation, it disputes that the conditions were highly likely to
cause a fatality because there was no mining being conducted in
the area at the time, there was no measurable amount of methane
in the area that the time or for the preceding twenty-four hours,
there were no adverse roof conditions which could lead to
friction or cause an ignition, and the area had been rock dusted.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner believes that the
evidence at trial may not establish that the violation was highly
likely to cause a fatality, and it proposes to settle the
violation upon the entry of an order which modifies the gravity
finding of "highly likely" to "reasonably likely". Petitioner
concludes that the payment of $2,000, to settle the violation
will serve to effect the intent and purpose of the Act.

                         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 IS GRANTED, and the settlement IS APPROVED.

                            ORDER

   IT IS ORDERED THAT:

   1. The contested section 104(a) "S&S" Citation
   No. 3731402, April 14, 1992, citing a violation of
   30 C.F.R.    75.400, is modified to reflect a gravity
   finding of "Reasonably likely", and as modified, IT
   IS AFFIRMED.

   2. The respondent shall pay a civil penalty assessment
   of $2,000, in satisfaction of the violation. Payment
   is to be made to the petitioner (MSHA) within thirty
   (30) days of the date of this decision and order, and
   upon receipt of payment, this matter is dismissed.

                              George A. Koutras
                              Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Patrick L. DePace, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Room 516, Arlington, VA 22203
(Certified Mail)

David J. Hardy, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, P.O. Box 553, Charleston,
WV 25322 (Certified Mail)

/ml