**FEDERAL MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

Office ofAdministrative Law Judges

1331 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004

Office: (202) 434-9933/ Fax: (202) 434-9949

 

 
| SECRETARY  OF LABOR

   MINE  SAFETY AND HEALTH        

   ADMINISTRATION  (MSHA),

                               Petitioner

 

                        v.

 

LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY, LLC,

                               Respondent                                                                                            |   |   | CIVIL  PENALTY PROCEEDING

 

Docket  No. PENN 2022-0133

A.C. No.  36-00190-562077

 

 

 

 

Mine:  Nazareth Plant I  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

**DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT**

 

Before:  JudgeMoran

 

This case is before the Court upona petition for assessment of a civil penalty under section 105(d) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977.  The Conference and Litigation Representative,(“CLR”), has filed a motion to approve settlement.  The originally assessedamount was **$35,274.00** and the proposed settlement is for **$17,610.00**,**representing a 50% overall reduction in the penalty for this docket**.  Thechanges are reflected in the following table:
| **Citation/Order** | **MSHA’s Proposed Penalty**   | **Settlement Amount** | **Other modifications to  citation/order**                                                                                                                           |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 9667158            | $8,549.00                     | $3,841.00             | Modify to Low negligence. 

**55% reduction in the penalty**                                                                                                          |
| 9667164            | $1,869.00                     | $378.00               | Change “injury or illness” to  “unlikely; and not significant & substantial.

**80% reduction in the penalty**                                                   |
| 9667165            | $1,869.00                     | $378.00               | Change “injury or illness” to  “unlikely; and not significant & substantial.

**80% reduction in the penalty**                                                   |
| 9667160            | $296.00                       | $296.00               | None                                                                                                                                                                  |
| 9667161            | $3,274.00                     | $1,472.00             | Modify to Low negligence.

**55% reduction in the penalty**                                                                                                           | $661.00 | $296.00 | Modify to Low negligence.

**55% reduction in the penalty** |
| 9667166            | $3,274.00                     | $3,274.00             | None                                                                                                                                                                  |
| 9667167            | $4,884.00                     | $662.00               | Change “injury or illness” to “unlikely;  and not significant & substantial. Modify to Lost Workdays or Restricted Duty.

**86% reduction in the penalty**       |
| 9667168            | $4,884.00                     | $3,274.00             | Modify to Lost Workdays or  Restricted Duty.

**33% reduction in the penalty**                                                                                       |
| 9667169            | $4,884.00                     | $3,274.00             | Modify to Lost Workdays or  Restricted Duty.

**33% reduction in the penalty**                                                                                       |
| 9667170            | $169.00                       | $169.00               | None                                                                                                                                                                  |
| 9667171            | $661.00                       | $296.00               | Modify to Low negligence.

**55% reduction in the penalty**                                                                                                           |
| **TOTAL**          | **$35,274.00**                | **$17,610.00**        | **50% (fifty percent) overall reduction in the penalty  for this docket**.

                                                                                    |

 

 

**Citation No. 9667165**, issued by MSHA Inspector Kyle C. Stofko, invoked 30 C.F.R. §56.14112(a)(1).  That standard speaks to the construction and maintenance ofguards.  It plainly and clearly provides that “[g]uards shall be constructed andmaintained to (1) [w]ithstand the vibration, shock, and wear to which they willbe subjected during normal operation.”  Here, the inspector found “the tailguard of the 694 conveyor *was missing* the left *and* right guards.This condition has exposed the winged tail pulley to contact approximately36" f[ro]m the catwalk. *The rear guard was alsobent and deformed creating jagged edges and openings to the tail pulley*andis against the travelway. Guards shall be constructed and maintained to withstandthe vibration, shock, and wear to which they will be subjected during normaloperation. The area is accessed on a regular basis. This condition has existedfor an unknown amount of time and exposes persons to permanently disablinginjuries. **Photos taken**.” 

 

PenaltyPetition at 18 (emphasis added). 

 

The Secretary requests Citation No.9667165 be modified to unlikely and to delete the significant and substantialdesignation, resulting in an **80% reduction in the penalty** from **$1,869.00to $378.00** for this now-admitted violation.  The Secretary’s motion statesthat “the Respondent would present evidence that the tail section of 694conveyor *had guards* in place to prevent accidental contact.  Theframework and location of the emergency stop cable would make contact with themoving machine parts difficult.”   Motion at 3. (emphasis added).

** **

** **

** **

**Analysis for Citation No. 9667165 with its 80% penaltyreduction**

** **

**Inviolations such as this, the Court believes it should be able to view critical,likely dispute-ending, photographs.**

** **

**Further,the Secretary should cease advancing irrelevant considerations on the subject ofsignificant and substantial violations, as the United States Courts of Appealhave definitively addressed that subject.**

** **

****In putative support for reducingthe penalty to $378.00, the Secretary offers two assertions: 1. the Respondent’sclaim that the conveyor had guards in place and 2. the emergency stop cordwould make contact with the moving machine parts difficult.  

 

            Asto the first assertion, there is direct conflict with the inspector’s wordsthat the tail guard of the 694 conveyor *was missing* the left and rightguards.  Further, the motion says nothing about the third hazard identified inthe citation – that the rear guard was also bent and deformed, creating jaggededges and openings to the tail pulley and against the travelway.  Inspector Stofkowisely took photographs of what he observed.  The Court applauds the inspector’staking photographs as they can provide useful supportive evidence.  The Secretarymakes no mention of the photographs in the motion. 

 

            Thosephotos would likely put to rest the issue of the guards, but the Commissionforbids its front-line reviewers of settlement motions, its administrative lawjudges, from seeing the photographs.  The federal courts have noted on numerousoccasions that “[a] picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph, especiallywhen coupled with text, can convey a powerful message.”  *Manzari v. Assoc.Newspapers*, 830 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2016), *Harris-Billups v. Anderson,*61F.4th 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2023).  However, none of the thousands of pictorial‘words’ in this docket are available for the Court to see.  

 

            Thesecond assertion, that *the emergency stop cord* would make contact withthe moving machine parts difficult, is to have no part in the analysis as it isnot to be considered in evaluating whether a violation is “significant andsubstantial.”   Yet, despite the Court reminding the Secretary on many, manyoccasions that such irrelevancies are off the table, the Secretary continues toassert them.   Whether out of brazenness or ignorance, the Court does not knowwhy these continue. However, the federal courts of appeals have made it clear,rejecting such alternative safety measures as cognizable excuses.  For example,in *Knox Creek Coal*, 811 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2016), that Court observed: 

 

“[i]f mine operators could avoid S& S liability—which is the primary sanction they fear under the Mine Act—bycomplying with redundant safety standards, operators could pick and choose thestandards with which they wished to comply.”...Such a policy would make suchstandards “mandatory” in name only.  It is therefore unsurprising that otherappellate courts have concluded that ‘[b]ecause redundant safety measures havenothing to do with the violation, they are irrelevant to the [S & S]inquiry.’ *Cumberland Coal*, 717 F.3d at 1029; *see also Buck Creek*,52 F.3d at 136.

 

*KnoxCreek Coal,* 811F.3d 148, 162 (4th Cir. 2016).

 

Furtherregarding this issue, in *Consolidation Coal*, 895 F.3d 113, (D.C. Cir. 2018), the D.C. Circuit, referring to its decision in *Cumberland CoalResources, LP v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission*, 717F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2013), noted that it:

 

interpreted the statutory text to focuson the “nature” of “the violation” rather than any surrounding circumstances.More to the point, the court held that “consideration of redundant safetymeasures,”—that is, “preventative measures that would have rendered bothinjuries from an emergency and the occurrence of an emergency in the firstplace less likely”—“is inconsistent with the language of [Section] 814(d)(1).” *Id.*at 1028–1029. 

 

*Id.* at 118-119. 

 

            As the D.C. Circuit furtherheld in *Consolidation Coal*, 895 F3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2018):

 

Ample Commissionprecedent holds that such considerations are irrelevant to the likelihood-of-injuryanalysis. That is because the third prong of the *Mathies* test focuses onthe risk of injury created by the safety violation itself. *See*, *e.g.*,*Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co.*, 38 FMSHRC 1307, 1313–1314(2016) (“[T]he methane monitor, fire suppression system and devices, watersprays, CO monitors, fire brigade, breathing devices and turnout gear for firefightersare the sort of safety measures that we, and the appellate courts, have held tobe irrelevant to the [significant and substantial] analysis underthe Act.”); *Secretary of Labor v. Brody Mining, LLC*, 37 FMSHRC 1687,1691 (2015) (“When deciding whether a violation is [significant and substantial],courts and the Commission have consistently rejected as irrelevant evidenceregarding the presence of safety measures designed to mitigate the likelihoodof injury resulting from the danger posed by the violation.”). The Commissionitself has characterized this rule as “well settled.” *Black Beauty Coal Co.*,38 FMSHRC at 1312.

 

The same is true ofminer precaution. Because the safety standards are there to protect miners, thehope or expectation that miners will protect themselves “is not relevant underthe *Mathies* test.” *Secretary of Labor v. Newtown Energy Inc.*, 38FMSHRC 2033, 2044 (2016); *see also Secretary of Labor v. Eagle Nest, Inc.*,14 FMSHRC 1119, 1123 (1992) (“We reject the judge’s conclusion that the‘exercise of caution’ may mitigate the hazard.”); *Secretary of Labor v. UnitedStates Steel Mining Co.*, 6 FMSHRC 1834, 1838 (1984) (dismissing argumentthat the violation of a cable marking requirement was not reasonably likely tocause injury because miners could determine the identity of cables by processof elimination); *Secretary of Labor v. Great W. Elec. Co.*, 5 FMSHRC 840,842 (1983) (considering miner skill “ignores the inherent vagaries of humanbehavior”). As the Commission has pointed out, while “miners should, of course,work cautiously, that admonition does not lessen the responsibility of operators,under the Mine Act, to prevent unsafe conditions.” *Eagle Nest, Inc.*, 14FMSHRC at 1123. This reading also has the benefit of advancing the stated purposeof the Mine Act, which gives “the first priority and concern” to the “healthand safety of its most precious resource—the miner,” in view of “an urgent needto provide more effective means and measures for improving the workingconditions and practices in the Nation’s coal or other mines in order to preventdeath and serious physical harm.”  30 U.S.C. § 801(a), (c).  

 

This court’s precedentis of the same mind. In *Secretaryof Labor v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission* (*Jim Walter Resources, Inc.*),111 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1997), this court held that the Commission could not rely onaggravating facts external to a safety violation to conclude that the violationwas of such nature as to significantly and substantially contribute to ahazard, *id.* at 915. The Secretary’sreading of *Mathies* relies on this same principle in reverse: thatcircumstances external to a violation cannot be used to reduce the likelihoodthat harm will ensue.

                                      

Likewise, in *Cumberland Coal Resources, LP v.Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission*, 717 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2013), this court again interpreted  thestatutory text to focus on the “nature” of “the violation” rather than anysurrounding circumstances. More to the point, the court held that “considerationof redundant safety measures,”—that is, “preventative measures that would haverendered both injuries from an emergency and the occurrence of an emergency inthe first place less likely”—“is inconsistent with the language of [Section]814(d)(1).”*Id.* at 1028–1029.” 

 

*Consolidation Coal*, 895 F.3d 113,118-119 (D.C. Cir. 2018)

 

            Yet, in the face of thesedecisions from the federal courts of appeals, the Secretary, in this instancethrough its non-attorney representatives – Conference Litigation Representatives,in this case, Mr. Ridley, habitually repeat such rejected bases.             TheCourt places this continued use of such irrelevant claims squarely on the Secretary. As non-attorneys, the CLRs are fed these assertions, merely reciting what theyare told by the Solicitor to include in the motions.  It is unfair to foist theirmisstatements on them.  They simply repeat what they are told to include in settlementmotions.  As such, the Secretary, through the façade of CLRs, cannot deliberatelymisstate or ignore case law that is unfavorable to her position. *See,**Teamsters v.B&M Transit**,*882 F.2d 274, 280 (7th Cir. 1989),[1]*Robb v Electronic Data,*990 F.2d 1253 (5th Cir. 1993), *EEOC v TaylorElectric*, 155 F.R.D. 180, (N.D. Ill. 1994), *Home Casual Enterprise,*2013WL 4821311 (W.D. Wis. 2013) (citing *Teamsters v. B&M Transit,Inc.,* at 280). 

 

**Citation No. 9667164**

** **

****For****Citation No. 9667164, MSHAInspector Stofko found a nearly identical, and arguably worse, violation of thesame guarding standard, 30 C.F.R. § 56.14112(a)(1).  This now-admitted violationwas found on the *same day* as Citation No. 9667165, a mere 15 minutesearlier.  

 

TheInspector’s description of the condition informed:

 

While inspecting the finish milllocated at plant 1, it            was found that the 633 conveyor head section andthe Gypbelt head section ***were both missing multiple guards*** for thepulleys and drive components. The conveyor head sections were directly stackedover each other. This area is accessed on a regular basis for travel greasingand maintenance. Guards shall be constructed and maintained to withstand thevibration, shock, and wear to which they will be subjected during normaloperation. All unguarded hazards were less than 7' from the catwalk. Theseconditions have existed for an unknown amount of time. Persons injured as aresult of the violation cited would receive permanently disabling injuries. **Photostaken**.

 

Penalty petition at 16 (emphasisadded)

 

            Giventhe recounting above for Citation No. 9667165, onewill not be surprised to read that the non-attorney representative for theSecretary offers the same serving for listing the gravity as ‘unlikely,’ and removingthe significant and substantial designation: 

 

The Respondent would presentevidence that the 633 conveyor and Gyp belt had guards in place to preventaccidental contact with the moving machine parts. *The location is not easilyaccessible to miners.*

 

Motion at 3 (emphasis added). 

 

            There is no indicationthat the federal appeals courts have said that such improper considerationswould be acceptable when presented in settlement motions, as opposed to ahearing, as such an inconsistent stance would not be logical. 

 

**Analysisfor Citation No. 9667164**

** **

            Heretoo, the inspector’s photos would likely resolve the claim about the presence,or lack thereof, of guards. There is no point in recounting the problemsidentified by the Court regarding Citation No. 9667165 because they are same. While the Court is obligated to follow Commission case law *and does so**respectfully*,it is of the view that if important photographs cannot be viewed by the Commission’sadministrative law judges and if the Secretary is continued to be permitted tocite irrelevant considerations in settlements, forbidden by the federal courtsof appeals, in those situations section 110(k) is at risk of becoming a phantomrequirement.  

 

            Itis the Court’s best recollection that only one commissioner expressed that the Commission’sjudges may not see photographs when reviewing settlements. These subjects were notexpressly covered in the Commission’s decisions in *The American Coal Co*.,40 FMSHRC 983 (Aug. 2018) and *Rockwell Mining, LLC*, 40 FMSHRC 994 (Aug.2018) for the standard to be applied by Commission administrative law judgeswhen reviewing such settlement motions under the Commission’s interpretation ofsection 110(k) of the Mine Act.  It is the Court’s hope that as theseidentified problems were not addressed in those decisions, and therefore notcontemplated, the Commission may address them.  

** **

**CitationNo. 9667167**

** **

            Thisnow-admitted violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.20003(a),was also issued by MSHA Inspector, Kyle Stofko.  The standard, titled, “Housekeeping,”provides that “Workplaces, passageways, storerooms, and service rooms shall bekept clean and orderly.”  The citation stated in the condition or practicesection:   

 

Located in the area of the 523 pandrive it was found that the floor contained spillage and various debristhroughout the floor. This area was traveled through inthe condition cited. The spillage was clinker up to 2" in size on thesmooth floor. There was also found piled machine parts in areas that wouldrequire travel for the 521disconnect. The affected floor area containingspillage was approximately 20' x 15'. Workplaces and passageways shall be keptclean and orderly. This condition has existed for an unknown amount of time andexposes persons to permanently disabling injuries. **Photos taken**. **Standard56.20003(a) was cited 37 times in two years** at mine 3600190 (36 to the operator,1 to a contractor).

 

Penalty petitionat 22. (emphasis added).

 

            Themotion presents the following:

 

            The Secretary requestsCitation No. 9667167 be modified to unlikely and delete the significant andsubstantial designation with lost workdays or restricted duty. The Respondent wouldpresent evidence that the area of the 523-pan feeder is located under thestairwell and is not regularly traveled or in a regular travelway. The injuryexpected from a slip trip or fall to the floor would result in lost workdays orrestricted duty. No miners were in the area at the timeof the inspection. 

 

Motion at 4.

 

** **

** **

** **

**Analysisfor****CitationNo. 9667167**

** **

            Nostranger to the requirements of this “Housekeeping” standard, *in this docketalone*, **fully eight (8) of the twelve (12) citations involved violationsof 30 C.F.R. § 56.20003(a).        All eight have been admitted to being violated.**Not mentioned by the CLR in the motion, and not disputed, is that theaffected area had clinker up to 2 inches in size on the smooth floor and piledmachine parts over the approximate 20 feet by 15 feet area.   

 

            Themotion suffers from several significant deficiencies.  The Respondent admitsthat the floor is traveled, contending *only*that it is not *regularly*traveled. The Respondent does not challenge that the floor contained spillage and variousdebris throughout the cited area, nor does it dispute the area involved, northat the floor was smooth, nor that “[t]his area was traveled through in thecondition cited.”  With no basis for the claim, the Respondent asserts that theexpected injury would be lost workdays or restricted duty.  The MSHA inspectorlisted the expected injury as ‘permanently disabling.’ Further, the claim that aninjury would be limited to lost workdays or restricted duty qualifies as areasonably serious injury and consequently does not impair the inspector’s ‘significantand substantial’ designation.   

 

            Inasserting that “[n]o miners were in the area at the time of the inspection,” theCLR, *and therefore the Secretary who instructs the CLRs what to assert insettlement motions*, ignores that the evaluation of whether a violation is ‘significantand substantial’ is measured by examining continued normal mining operations,*without* any assumptions as to abatement.    *Mach Mining*,809 F.3d 1259, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2016).  Thus, the remark that no miners were inthe area *at the time of the inspection* is an impermissible consideration. “[I]njuries resulting in lost workdays or restricted duties ... establishes thatthe hazard contributed to by the violations would be reasonably likely toresult in an injury of a reasonably serious nature as required by our S&Sanalysis.” *Spartan Mining*, 35 FMSHRC 3505, 3509 (Dec. 2013).  The Secretaryshould instruct its non-attorney representatives to cease including impermissiblefactors in the evaluation of whether a violation is significant and substantial.[2]

**Not tobe ignored is Citation No. 9667158.**

** **

**CitationNo**. **9667158**

 

This Citationfor which the Secretary seeks a **55% reduction** in the regularly assessedproposed penalty presented and extremely serious situation, for which none ofthe facts in the Condition or Practice section are disputed.  That section states: 

 

While inspecting the level 5 sumppumps in the Plant 2 quarry it was found that safe access was not maintained.The access path from the water truck fill area to the pump control switch wasfound to be along the edge of the pond that had a 9' shear drop to the waterbelow. The path was uneven with large loose rock and found to be within 3' ofthe edge of the pond. The pump control switch was also within 4' of the edge ofthe pond. The catwalk access for the pumps was found to be broken away from theanchoring block and secured with a come-along and a cable. This conditioncreated a gap between the anchoring block ( That doubles as a flat access platform)and the catwalk. This access point also is located at the edge of the pond atthe 9' drop to the water below. Safe means of access shall be provided andmaintained to all working places. There was no personal floatation devicesavailable in this area. The area is normally accessed by one person multipletimes per day to fill the water truck and the pumps are accessed 2 times permonth for pump maintenance. The conditions cited have existed since May of2022. Persons injured as a result of the violation cited would receive fatalinjuries. Photos taken.

 

Penalty Petitionat 6. 

 

Hereagain, the diligent Inspector Stofko took photographs to record what he observed. 

 

            TheSecretary’s Motion requests Citation No. 9667158 be modified to Low negligence. The Respondentwould present evidence that a miner took it upon himself to use a frontendloader to modify the area without management’s knowledge. The condition was notreported to the mine operator on the workplace exams.

** **

** **

**Analysisfor Citation No. 9667158**

 

            Themultiple, extensive, hazards, as described above, cannot be brushed aside onthe frontend loader operator because several of them could not have beencreated by the operation of that machine.  Further, while the offered excuse couldarguably be a basis for moderate negligence, a level of negligence the issuinginspector bestowed on the operator, it could not be a basis for low negligenceas no ‘considerable’ mitigating circumstances were offered in the settlementfor this violation.  

** **

**Conclusion**

 

Despite the many troublesome aspects discussed in this decision, the Court is presently constrainedwhen reviewing motions for approval of settlement.  As such, it has consideredthe Secretary’s Motion and approves it *solely* on the basis of theCommission’s decisions in *The American Coal Co*., 40 FMSHRC 983 (Aug. 2018)and *Rockwell Mining, LLC*, 40 FMSHRC 994 (Aug. 2018) for the standard tobe applied by Commission administrative law judges when reviewing suchsettlement motions under the Commission’s interpretation of section 110(k) ofthe Mine Act.  Per the Commission’s decisions on the scope of a judge’s reviewauthority of settlements, the “information” presented in this settlement motionis sufficient for approval.  

 

            Accordingly, the motion to approve settlement is **GRANTED**, the citationscontained in this docket are **MODIFIED**as set forth in the table aboveand Lehigh Cement Company, LLC is **ORDERED** to pay the Secretary of Labor the sum of **$17,610.00**within 30 days of this order.[3].

Uponreceipt of payment, this case is DISMISSED.

 

 

/s/William B. Moran

                                                                                    WilliamB. Moran

                                                                                    AdministrativeLaw Judge

 

 

Distribution:

 

Norman C.Ridley, Conference and Litigation Representative, U.S. Department of Labor,MSHA, 178 Thorn Hill Road, Suite 100, Warrendale, PA  15086   ridley.norman@dol.gov

 

Philip K. Kontul,OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, One PPG Place, Suite 1900,Pittsburgh, PA 15222 philip.kontul@ogletree.com

 

----

[1]*Teamsters v.B&M Transit*cites a host of other cases for this principle: aparty is not entitled to deliberately **ignoreor misstate****case****law** that is unfavorable to itsposition. *See Fred A. Smith Lumber Co. v. Edidin,* 845 F.2d 750, 753 (7thCir. 1988); *Szabo Food Service,* 823 F.2d at 1081.*Id**.*

[2]This ignorance over the requirementthat the ‘significant and substantial’ determination is to be measured byexamining continued normal mining operations, without any assumptions as to abatement,and that alternative safety measures are not a cognizable excuse, is repeated throughoutthis settlement motion as noted below, with the bold text below showing theimproperly asserted grounds which pertain to three of the other citations inthis docket: 

 

**For CitationNo**. **9667163,**the Secretary requests it be modified to Low negligence. **The Respondent wouldpresent evidence that the area of the 616-dust collector has been provided withhand tools and a suction hose that are readily available in case of any spillage.The miners have received training to clean the area prior to walking throughthe area.**

** **

**For CitationNo.****9667168,**the Secretary requests it be modified to lost workdays or restricted duty. TheRespondent would argue that the injury expected from a slip, trip or fall inthe area around the 522 elevator and the 521 conveyor would result in lostworkdays or restricted duty. **The area has a significant handrail around thatouter edge of the elevated platform to prevent falling to levels below.**

** **

**For CitationNo.****9667169,**theSecretary requests that it be modified to lost workdays or restricted duty. TheRespondent would present evidence that injury expected from a slip, trip orfall on the 550-dust collector landing would result in lost workdays or restrictedduty. **The outer edge is provided with a significant handrail systemconsisting of a mid-rail and upper rail.**

** **

To InspectorStofko’s credit, he also took photos for each of these now-admitted violationshe observed: Citation No. 9667163, Citation No. 9667168, and Citation No.9667169.

 

[3]Penalties may be paid electronicallyat Pay.Gov, a service of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, athttps://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/67564508. Alternatively, send payment(check or money order) to: U.S. Department of Treasury, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, P.O. Box 790390, St. Louis, MO 63179-0390. Please includeDocket and A.C. Numbers. It is vital to include Docket and A.C. Numbers whenremitting payments.