Source: http://www.minesafety.com/case-law-on-mshaoperator-settlements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:07:56+00:00

Document:
For the public record, here is case law on settlements under the Mine Act as digested in the Mine Safety and Health News Cumulative Digest. The very first case on the issue was back in 1979 — 37 years ago — and involved Pomerleau Bros., Inc. [ALJ (1979) WILK 79-4-PM] (see: 1 MSHC 1770). We have not included all settlement cases, since many do not involve the topic of ALJ approval.
An ALJ improperly rejected a settlement in a discrimination case where he refused to accept the Secretary’s penalty reduction of 50% and certain settlement language. The judge said the Secretary’s $35,000 penalty in the settlement, reduced from MSHA’s $70,000 proposed penalty, was inadequate where the company had filed a private lawsuit in state court against a miner who had filed a discrimination complaint against the companies. The Judge was required to consider the settlement agreement as a whole, giving due consideration to the non-monetary aspects of the decision as well as to the monetary aspects. The payment of a reduced penalty was balanced by other non-monetary aspects of the settlement, such as the dismissal of the suit with prejudice, and the posting and training requirements.” SECRETARY OF LABOR o/b/o REUBEN SHEMWELL v. ARMSTRONG COAL CO. INC., and ARMSTRONG FABRICATORS INC., 5/13/2014, Docket No. KENT 2013-362-D, 36 FMSHRC 1097; 20 MSHN D-1360 (ALJ Feldman). (For previous decisions on the Shemwell case see: 20 MSHN D-599, 20 MSHN D-1024, 20 MSHN D-2256, 20 MSHN D-2561, 20 MSHN D-2566, 20 MSHN D-2941).
The Mine Act’s legislative history, and numerous Commission and federal cases identify deterrence as a central tenet of the Mine Act and its penalty provisions. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
The plain language of section 110(k) of the Mine Act explicitly authorizes the Commission to review a proffered settlement of a contested penalty. Section 110(k) provides that “[n]o proposed penalty which has been contested before the Commission under section 105(a) shall be compromised, mitigated, or settled except with the approval of the Commission.” Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
Congress intended that the settlement of a penalty be open to scrutiny in order to better serve the purpose of civil penalties, that is, to encourage operators’ compliance with mandatory standards. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
In order to ensure penalties serve as an effective enforcement tool, prevent abuse, and preserve the public interest, Congress authorized the Commission to approve the settlement of civil penalties. To remedy past abuses under the 1969 Act, Congress intended to assure that the abuses involved in the unwarranted lowering of penalties as a result of off-the-record negotiations are avoided. It is intended that the Commission and the Courts will assure that the public interest is adequately protected before approval of any reduction in penalties. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
The Secretary’s argument that a settlement offer is a revised proposed penalty was rejected. The Secretary argued that she cannot be required to submit additional information to a Judge because the last sentence of section 110(i) provides, “In proposing civil penalties under this Act, the Secretary may rely upon a summary review of the information available to him and shall not be required to make findings of fact concerning the [statutory penalty] factors.” 30 U.S.C. § 820(i). Such language unambiguously applies only to the proposal of penalties, i.e., the Secretary’s duty under section 105(a) to propose penalties. The penalty proposal process ends when the proposed penalty assessment is sent to the operator. Once such a proposed penalty is contested, Commission jurisdiction attaches, the Secretary is no longer proposing a penalty, and the last sentence of section 110(i) does not apply. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
Commission Procedural Rule 31 provides that a “proposed penalty that has been contested before the Commission may be settled only with the approval of the Commission upon motion,” and expressly requires a party seeking the approval of a settlement to submit “[f]acts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)(3). Rule 31 further provides that any “order by the Judge approving a settlement shall set forth the reasons for approval and shall be supported by the record.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(c). Rule 65 provides in part that a “Judge may require the submission of proposed findings of fact.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.65. Thus, a Judge’s authority to reasonably request additional information to justify a proposed settlement is fully supported by both the Act and the Commission’s procedural rules. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
The procedural rule promulgated by the Commission to implement section 110(k) is devoid of any limitations regarding what a Judge may or may not consider in approving a settlement. Commission Procedural Rule 31(g), simply states that “[a]ny order by the Judge approving a settlement shall set forth the reasons for approval and shall be supported by the record.” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(g). Notably, the Commission amended this rule in 1980, as a prior version had required Judges to include in decisions approving penalty settlements a discussion of the six statutory criteria for penalty assessments set forth in section 110(i) of the Act. In deleting this requirement, the Commission stated the amendment was “intended to enhance the flexibility of the Judges to approve settlements.” 45 Fed. Reg. 44301, 44302 (1980). Such flexibility should also include the option of explicitly taking into account the deterrent effect of the penalty when reviewing a settlement proposal. Black Beauty Coal Co., 8/20/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2008-327 et al., 34 FMSHRC 1856, 19 MSHN 489.
A settlement was in violation of interim Commission procedural Rule 31 where the operator did not approve the settlement motion submitted by the CLR, and said the settlement agreement did not reflect what it had agreed to in settling the citations. The company’s motion to vacate the two decisions constituted a timely filed petition for review, the ALJ’s July 28, 2010 decision was vacated and remanded back to her for further proceedings. NELSON QUARRIES, 9/3/2010, Docket No. CENT 2009-663-M and CENT 2009-664-M; 32 FMSHRC 1098.
An ALJ’s approval of a settlement agreement in a discrimination case was vacated, and it was found that the settlement motion was “prematurely filed” because the miner had not agreed to the settlement provisions. A settlement motion must represent “a genuine agreement between the parties, a true meeting of the minds as to its provisions.” Also, under the commission’s rules, a miner in a discrimination case who is represented by the Secretary of Labor is a “party.” The case was reopened and remanded for additional proceedings. Sec’y of Labor on behalf of Pendley v. Highland Mining Co., Docket No. KENT 2006-506-D, 29 FMSHRC 164 (April 3, 2007), 14 MSHN 170 (April 29, 2007).
An ALJ’s rejection of a settlement agreement between the Solicitor and an operator and its security company based on his concerns about whether there was adequate abatement of the violations which contributed to a security guard’s death from carbon monoxide poisoning was vacated and the case was remanded for reconsideration. The adequacy of the vehicle inspection program proposed in the settlement was irrelevant to the issue of whether the companies had abated the violations of § 77.404(a) and § 48.31(a) in good faith, and the ALJ was wrong to reject the settlement on this ground. The citations were “narrowly drawn,” did not allege a practice of shoddy vehicle maintenance or a general failure to provide hazard training, and “did not trigger a broad duty of abatement.” Madison Branch Management, Docket Nos. WEVA 93-218-R et al., 17 FMSHRC 859 (June 12, 1995), 2 MSHN 366, D-167 (June 30, 1995).
MSHA has the authority to vacate citations without the approval of the Commission and its judges, and an ALJ’s order refusing MSHA’s request to dismiss civil penalty proceedings was vacated. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union that the Sec’y of Labor has unreviewable discretion to withdraw a citation charging an employer with a violation of the OSH Act. The commission’s 1985 holding in Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. that the agency must show “adequate reasons” to support dismissal of a case was overruled based on the Cuyahoga Valley Ry. case. RBK Construction Inc., Docket Nos. WEST 93-154-M, 15 FMSHRC 2099 (Oct. 25, 1993).
Where a power cable on a pump was not properly entered into the junction box of a motor and an inspector issued a citation for a S&S violation of §75.515, the Secy.’s motion to approve a settlement agreement which would have vacated the S&S designation was denied; the proper standard for determining whether an alleged violation is S&S is if it presents a substantial possibility of injury, and the Secy.’s settlement motion did not establish that the possibility of injury did not exist. Consolidation Coal Co., WEVA 91-43, 13 FMSHRC 748 (Apr. 30, 1991) (ALJ Fauver).
Where a trailing cable to a continuous miner was not adequately insulated and an inspector issued a citation for a S&S violation of §75.517, the Secy.’s motion to approve a settlement agreement which would have vacated the S&S designation was denied; the proper standard for determining whether an alleged violation is S&S is if it presents a substantial possibility of injury, and the Secy.’s settlement motion did not show that the possibility did not exist. Consolidation Coal Co., WEVA 91-43, 13 FMSHRC 748 (Apr. 30, 1991) (ALJ Fauver).
Once ALJ jurisdiction attaches, Comm. will not grant automatically motions to dismiss, modify, or vacate pending action; however, Labor Secy. cannot be forced to pursue discrimination complaint after convinced filing in error, and may withdraw case, provided withdrawal request supported with statement or reasons. Roland, Robert K. [ALJ (1985) WEST 84-46-DM(A)] 3 MSHC 1770.
The 1977 Mine Act makes very clear that penalty proceedings before the Commission are de novo. The Commission is not bound by penalty assessment regulations adopted by the Secretary but rather that in a proceeding before the Commission the amount of the penalty to be assessed is a de novo determination based upon the six statutory criteria specified in section 110(i) of the Act, and the information relevant thereto developed in the course of the adjudicative proceeding. Sellersburg Stone Co., 5 FMSHRC 287 (March 1983).
Judge lawfully disapproved parties’ joint proposed settlement agreement containing exculpatory language that could have prevented consideration of alleged violations involved in future proceedings under Act. Amax Lead Co. of Missouri [ (1982) CENT 81-63-M] 2 MSHC 1716.
ALJ properly approved settlement agreement containing exculpatory clause stating that there was no admission of violation of FMSHA because parties are free to admit or deny fact of violation in settlement agreements. Central Ohio Coal Co. [(1982) LAKE 81-78] 2 MSHC 1766.
ALJ erred in approving proposed penalty settlement of parties where parties’ stipulation shows that alleged violation did not occur. Co-op Mining Co. [ (1980) DENV 79-1-P] 2 MSHC 1067.
Judge’s failure to state reasons for approval of settlement requires remand of case to judge for entry into record of settlement agreement, statement of reasons for approval of agreement, and statement of facts of record supporting judge’s determination. Republic Steel Corp. [PITT 78-156-P et al.(Nov. 27, 1978)] 1 MSHC 1709.
Judge’s decision approving settlements in which operator was ordered to pay 10% of originally proposed penalties are affirmed; motions to approve settlements set forth information relevant to criteria, and discussed detrimental effect that originally proposed penalties would have no effect on the operator’s ability to remain in business. Davis Coal Co. [(1980) HOPE 78-627-P et al.] 1 MSHC 2305.
Operator’s past payments of proposed orders of penalty assessment is admissible as evidence of its history of violations, since such payments is not satisfaction of offer of compromise or settlement and does not remove from operator’s record notices of violation upon which penalties were based. Valley Camp Coal Co. [IBMA (1972) 72-22] 1 MSHC 1043.
A settlement motion was rejected where none of the MSHA inspector’s concerns in the citation were addressed in the settlement motion. The Secretary did not disclose whether discovery had taken place, and only offered the “claim” of the company that negligence and unwarrantable failure findings, and mitigating factors. However, the Secretary’s reasoning was not supported by the evidence that had been offered by the MSHA inspector in the language of the citations and orders. It was noted that the inspector had addressed mitigating factors in the closeout conference, as evidences in the language of the citations and orders. The Secretary’s motion of a 40% reduction in the fines did not comport with the statutory aims of the Mine Act. REMINGTON LLC, 2/26/2015, FMSHRC(J) No. WEVA 2014-315; 22 MSHN D-397 (ALJ Moran).
Two settlement motions submitted one year apart for one case were rejected twice where the Secretary proposed a 30% across-the-board reduction of 32 citations and orders without any changes in gravity or negligence of the citations. Some of the citations were for repeat violations of the same standard – for instance 106 repeat violations of §75.202(a), and three repeat violations for coal accumulations under §75.400 in this case alone. The judge said there was no legitimate basis to reduce any of these citations, and the cited matters were not negligible violations. The ALJ rejected the Secretary’s reasoning that a reduced penalty was appropriate in light of the Secretary and operator’s interest in settling the case amicably without further litigation. The judge found the Secretary’s motion contained “gross re-wording” of the Mine Act, and crossed an ethical line for proper advocacy – containing not a single word about the health and safety of the miners. The American Coal Co., 5/13/2014, Docket No. LAKE 2011-13, 36 FMSHRC 1349; 21 MSHN 344 (order denying settlement motion) (ALJ Moran).
Under Sect. 110(k), when the Secretary and operator seek to reduce a penalty or findings, a judge must understand the basis for a compromise so that the judge can fulfill his or her statutory obligation under the Mine Act. Settlements should not be based on the need to save litigation and collection expenses, and those factors should play no role in determining settlement amounts. The American Coal Co., 5/13/2014, Docket No. LAKE 2011-13, 21 MSHN 344 (order denying settlement motion) (ALJ Moran).
A settlement must not weaken MSHA’s enforcement capabilities and jeopardize the health and safety of miners. The American Coal Co., 5/13/2014, Docket No. LAKE 2011-13, 21 MSHN 344 (order denying settlement motion) (ALJ Moran).
An ALJ’s authority to reasonably request additional information to justify a proposed settlement is fully supported by the Mine Act, Commission rules, and legislative history. The American Coal Co., 5/13/2014, Docket No. LAKE 2011-13, 21 MSHN 344 (order denying settlement motion) (ALJ Moran).
An ALJ rejected a settlement for violations where the CLR’s motion lacked adequate justifications for reductions in the penalties. There were instances where 25% to 40% reductions were proposed for damaged cables with exposed copper wires, ventilation controls not working properly, excessive methane, improper rock-dusting and float coal dust, lifelines entangled with other cables, and a number of miners affected by the violations. CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., 8/19/2013, order denying settlement motion, Docket No. VA 2010-564; 20 MSHN D-2972 (ALJ Moran).
An order denying a CLR’s appearance and order denying a proposed settlement was issued after the CLR sought a reductions ranging from 30% – 35% in two dockets, and offered similar reasons as were given in previous motions for other cases with other mines. The CLR claimed that due to a large workload, there was no longer time to hold health and safety conferences where citation findings could be changed. The settlement would have changed negligence, S&S and the number of miners affected by the violations, without any adequate justification. The ALJ was equally critical of the fact that the CLR would require the use of a heat gun in order to determine if a violative condition involving accumulations of combustible materials was S&S. A second settlement was submitted by a DOL attorney, and accepted by Judge, where the settlement outlined specific reasons for changes in findings, and other citations were accepted as written. In the final approved agreement, total penalties were reduced between 28% and 31%. Coal River Mining, 4/4/2013, Docket No. WEVA 2012-853 and WEVA 2012-1697 (unpublished).
A settlement motion was rejected where the Secretary and operator filed a motion to lower total penalties by 69%. Violations included fire sensors that were not working on the belt line, CO detectors did not work, there was a lack of ventilation as required in the ventilation plan, there were accumulations of combustible materials, the roof bolter was not in permissible condition, and there were escapeway violations. In one case of an accumulation violation where there were rollers turning in coal and the inspector found the area “hot to the touch,” the CLF proposed to re-designate the violation as non-S&S because the inspector did not use a heat gun to measure the temperature. The CLR modified a majority of the citations by eliminating the S&S finding, reducing the negligence to low, and changing the number of miner affected by the violation. The CLR also stated that management was not aware of the violations, that violations were due to the “rigors of mining,” or there were other safety measures in place. In rejecting the settlement, the ALJ said the CLR did not consider the appropriate facts that related to the gravity of the violations, and the information provided for the settlement did not meet the penalty criteria of 110(i). MARFORK COAL CO., INC., 3/22/2014, Docket No. WEVA 2012-941, 35 FMSHRC 738 (ALJ Miller).
A CLR was denied permission to practice before the Commission where the ALJ said it was apparent that the CLR did not understand what constitutes S&S, as well as the meaning of negligence, based on the CLR’s settlement motions. After the first rejection, the ALJ offered the CLR and opportunity to study cases of S&S findings for guidance, and it was suggested that she review the MSHA regulations regarding the meaning of “negligence.” The CLR responded by stating that MSHA inspectors were “over-writing” citations. In addition, because of the high caseload, CLR said there was no longer have time for health and safety conferences where operators are afforded the opportunity to get incorrectly cited citations modified prior to the assessment and litigation process. She stated that in making the modifications, she “had to be fair to both sides.” Accordingly, she was treating the contest proceedings as if they were a pre-penalty contest. Once the penalties are contested, the ALJ stressed they are no longer in the prehearing penalty and safety conference phase, and the criteria the CLR was using was not appropriate under the criteria set forth under 110(I) of the Mine Act. Marfork Coal Co., 3/22/2013, Docket No. WEVA 2012-941 et al., 35 FMSHRC 738 (ALJ Miller).
A settlement motion was denied where the CLR sought to change the citations to reflect that the contractor was responsible for the violation, and not the operator. It is well settled case law that the ALJ does not have the authority to make this change, and the settlement motion was denied. SUNOL AGGREGATES, 11/21/12, Docket No. WEST 2012-473-M, 34 FMSHRC 3012 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
A settlement motion was rejected where the DOL attorney did not provide any facts to support overturning the MSHA inspector’s S&S finding, and a reduction in the penalty from $971 to $500 for a violation of the mine’s Emergency Response Plan. Commission Rule 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)(1), mandates that for each violation, the “motion to approve a penalty settlement” must include “facts in support of the penalty agreed to by the parties.” The Secretary argued it was within her discretion to authority to change the S&S status of a contested citation at any time prior to hearing. However, after an MSHA inspector issues a citation, the Secretary is afforded ample time to exercise prosecutorial discretion and modify a citation to correct for error or to more accurately reflect the conditions or practices at the mine. In accordance with MSHA policy, the Secretary may choose to pursue good-faith settlement efforts prior to contest or the formal filing of a civil penalty petition, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review such pre-contest settlements. However, once the operator contests the Secretary’s proposed assessment of penalty, Commission jurisdiction attaches. The Mine Act’s Section 110(k) provides for Commission oversight of settlements where the Secretary has agreed to compromise or mitigate a proposed penalty. The Act provides for this independent review to guard against possible abuses of the Secretary in proposing settlements that are inconsistent with the public interest or the Act’s objectives. Dickenson-Russell Coal Co. , 10/15/2012, Docket No. VA 2012-397; 34 FMSHRC 2868; 19 MSHN 590 (ALJ McCarthy) .
A global settlement was approved by two ALJ’s where a new corporate owner withdrew contest to thousands of citations and orders of the previous corporation, and agreed to pay the penalties in full for all citations and orders related to the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine. The global settlement of civil penalties was also part of a criminal settlement, in which the new parent corporation agreed to pay a total of approximately $209 million as part of the overall settlement, that included $19.8 million in MSHA penalties, $46.5 million in restitution to the families of the 29 victims and another $48 million to fund mining research. Although a “global settlement,” the Secretary stated she accurately evaluated the gravity and negligence in proposing a penalty for each docket included in the motion. While approving the global settlement, the ALJs stated they did so “with great caution,” with assurances that the former Massey mines are taking the necessary steps to assure compliance with MSHA regulations, thereby providing a safer working environment for all of their miners. PERFORMANCE COAL CO. and NUMEROUS FORMER MASSEY MINES; 3/7/2012, Docket No. WEVA 2011-1934 et al., 34 FMSHRC 587 (Chief ALJ Lesnick with ALJ Miller).
A settlement was rejected where there was a violation of the rock dusting standards under§75.403.The Secretary requested that the citation be modified to change the classification of the citation from a 104(d)(1) citation to a 104(a) citation and to reduce the level of negligence from “high” to “moderate.” The modification was accompanied by a reduction in the penalty from $13,609 to $3,690. No factual basis, or mitigating circumstances was provided to justify the proposed modification to the citation or the resulting change in penalty. ROCK N ROLL COAL CO., 1/10/2012, Docket No. WEVA 2011-862; 34 FMSHRC 319 (ALJ McCarthy).
The an attorney for the Secretary was issued a stern warning and reminded of Commission rules where he failed to submit requested information for a settlement. The Secretary’s argument that requiring a factual basis would compromise the Secretary’s thought processes, legal theories, or work product privilege. The factual basis for a settlement does not need to include the thought processes, legal theories, or work product of the Secretary to provide sufficient guidance as to whether the settlement effectuates the purposes of the Act. It needs to include a proffer of facts sufficient to justify the settlement. Such facts generally are not encompassed by the work product privilege, which applies to documents prepared in anticipation of litigation, not settlement. See, e.g. ASARCO, Inc., 12 FMSHRC 2548, 2557-58 (December 1990). The privilege is intended to prevent an unfair advantage to the opposing party. There is no such advantage to be gained in settling a case in the public interest. And if, for example, the Secretary agrees in a settlement that there is some validity to the respondent’s arguments, such an admission is not admissible if the settlement is rejected and the case heard. ROCK N ROLL COAL CO., 1/10/2012, Docket No. WEVA 2011-862; 34 FMSHRC 319 (ALJ McCarthy).
A settlement motion reducing a proposed penalty from $5,000 to $100 was rejected where a company failed to report to MSHA for 6.5 hours a power outage that affected two hoists at an underground salt mine. In support of the settlement motion, the CLR stated that the “Secretary has determined that the violation was not subject to penalties defined in SECTION 5 of the MINER ACT of 2006,” and the power outage was not subject to the immediate notification requirement of §50.10(a), but subject to §50.10(d). Here, the accident at issue was that the mine “experienced a power outage affecting both hoists.” In rejecting the settlement motion, the judge said the CLR provided no facts upon which he could assess the likelihood of whether the power outage and hoist problems could have potentially led to an injury or entrapment with “a reasonable potential to cause death,” and in the absence of any such facts, it was impossible for him to conclude that the Secretary had a reasonable basis for her determination. MORTON SALT DIVISION, 1/18/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2010-968-M, 34 FMSHRC 327 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
A settlement was rejected where a company failed to timely report “a roof fall of mammoth and potentially lethal dimensions.” The unplanned fall measured 200 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 8 feet thick, and found at 6:40 a.m. and not reported until 8:00 a.m. A $5,000 penalty had been proposed by MSHA, and the CLR sought a $100 fine stating that the violation was not subject to penalties defined in SECTION 5 of the MINER ACT of 2006.” However, the massive roof fall might have been immediately reportable under §50.10(d), which includes the reporting of “any other accident,” and nothing in the regulation exempts subsection (d) from the 15 minute requirement. The CLR was ordered to submit additional information so the ALJ could assess the likelihood of whether the roof fall could have potentially caused or led to an injury or entrapment with “a reasonable potential to cause death.” ARCH MATERIALS LLC, 1/18/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2011-189-M, 34 FMSHRC 330 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
An ALJ deferred to the Secretary’s reading of her own regulation that “Any other accident” referred to in section §50.10, that does not involve the death of an individual, or an injury or entrapment with “a reasonable potential to cause death,” is exempt from the 15 minute requirement. ARCH MATERIALS LLC, 1/18/2012, Docket No. LAKE 2011-189-M, 34 FMSHRC 330 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
An ALJ rejected a settlement where the Solicitor’s Office would have modified the citation so that the language reflected that an injury would be permanently disabling,” and not fatal, and the settlement would have reduced the penalty from $1,111 to $777. MSHA inspectors found no wireless communication system in areas of the alternate escapeway. According to the citation, “in the event of an emergency the lack of communications in this area could be fatal, therefore all miners inby this location would be affected by this condition.” The motion failed to predicate the modifications upon any factual support. The Arlington Solicitor’s Office has been on notice of the Commission’s clear instructions to provide a factual basis for each and every settlement.” The Solicitor’s Office filed documents, and was immediately sent an email informing him that a revised Motion and Order were needed including a factual basis for the modifications. No revision was received, and the ALJ said the Secretary acted in a direct contravention of her order as well as recently issued Commission decisions and obstructing the judge’s authority and responsibility to enforce the intent and purpose of the Mine Act. Dominion Coal Corp. 10/17/2012, Docket No. VA 2012-227; 19 MSHN 590 (ALJ Rae).
An ALJ found “no rational explanation” justifying a modification of a citation from moderate to low negligence, and the accompanying reduction in penalty by 55%” where a dozer operator was trapped and suffered severe burns when his machinery fell into a void on a large coal stockpile, and an ignition had occurred. The Secretary accepted the company’s argument that it could not have foreseen that the dozer operator would attempt to exit the dozer onto the raw coal pile “and, therefore, the negligence should be less than was cited” and proposed the civil penalty should be reduced from $7,578 to $3,405. In rejecting the settlement motion, the ALJ said the injury was serious, and the severe burns could have turned fatal. The proposed settlement was unreasonable and inappropriate under the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act, and would not effectuate the deterrent purpose underlying the Act’s penalty assessment scheme. American Coal Co., 4/18/2011, Docket No. LAKE 2010-315; 33 FMSHRC 1033 (ALJ McCarthy).
A settlement motion was rejected where the Secretary did not fully explain penalty reductions between 76% and 97% for several 104(d)(2) orders that were modified to 104(a) citations. The motion lacked supporting rationale, including a reduction where visible smoke was emanating from a conveyor belt, and areas in the mine of significant coal accumulations. The Secretary offered unsupported assertions, such as “[m]odify to reasonably likely,” and “change number of persons affected from 6 to 1, ” which did not illuminate any underlying basis for support of those changes, especially when the assertions conflict with the details offered in the citation. EMERALD COAL CO., 2/28/2011, Docket No. PENN 2009-564, 33 FMSHRC 535 (ALJ Moran).
Settlements should reflect proportionality. That is, as the amount of a given reduction grows from the initial assessment, generally the amount of information to justify the reduction should be proportionally greater as well. Restated, a proposed reduction of 50% will generally require more information to support it than a reduction proposing a 10% reduction. EMERALD COAL CO., 2/28/2011, Docket No. PENN 2009-564, 33 FMSHRC 535 (ALJ Moran).
The Secretary and an operator were ordered to renegotiate a settlement where the joint motion was denied by an ALJ. The company was cited under §56.14107(a), with a special assessment of $52,500 after a miner was seriously injured when he became entangled in the drive shaft and the stub on the main feed conveyor in a screen unit. The citation stated that no guards were provided for the head pulley, the head pulley drive shaft, and the stub shaft of the main feed conveyor. The Secretary sought an 80% reduction in the penalty, down to $10,000 stating that the miner accessed the area contrary to all mine rules and procedures, and the miner’s actions were “completely unreasonable, unexpected, and without prior incident at this mine.” The company was also cited under §56.15005 with a proposed fine of $1,026, because the injured miner was not wearing fall protection when he climbed onto the I-beam to access the area, and a fine of $1,026 for a lock-out-tag-out violation under §56.14105. The secretary sought a 50% reduction in these two penalties, offering the same reasoning as the guarding violation – that the behavior of the injured miner was idiosyncratic. The motion submitted by the Secretary stated the lowered penalties were “sufficient to ensure further compliance with the Act,” but the Secretary failed to offer sufficient information for the judge to determine whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest or is consistent with the Mine Act’s objectives. The citations allege that a miner was seriously injured because the operator violated three different safety standards, yet the motion fails to explain why the penalties were compromised to such an extent. Section 110(i) of the Mine Act sets forth the criteria to be used in assessing penalties, and the Secretary should outline these criteria when proposing to reduce a penalties by 50% to 80%. NORTHERN FILTER MEDIA, INC., 11/10/2011, Docket No. CENT 2010-1270-M, 33 FMSHRC 2895 (ALJ Manning).
A joint motion was dismissed with prejudice where the Secretary agreed to vacate the citation. A motion seeking an ALJ’s approval to dismiss a matter should not be denominated as a settlement since the Secretary has the authority to vacate citations and that such actions are not reviewable. LEHIGH CEMENT CO INC., 9/3/2010, Docket No. SE 2009-991-M, 32 FMSHRC 1304 (ALJ Moran).
A settlement was rejected by an ALJ where a penalty assessed for $11,306 for a ventilation violation was reduced to $207. The ALJ said given the significant history of the ventilation problems at the mine and previous citations, a reduction of 98% could not be justified or accepted. CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., 7/12/10, Docket No. PENN 2009-803, 17 MSHN 342 (July 14, 2010) (unpublished) (ALJ Moran).
A settlement where an operator’s penalty was reduced by 64% lacked the factual basis necessary under the Mine Act. The Secretary said the penalty is “fair” and “reasonable” and “in the public interest.” However, “the Mine Act and Commission precedent requires her and other parties to a settlement to provide more than mere empty words to justify their agreement. Otherwise, section 110(k) would be meaningless, and the authority of Commission judges to review settlements would be reduced to providing the proverbial rubber stamp.” ALASKA MECHANICAL INC., 6/30/2010, Docket No. WEST 2008-152-RM, 32 FMSHRC 738 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
An 80% reduction in penalties as part of a settlement was rejected. Given the extreme reductions in the amount of penalties, there was insufficient information to determine what penalty would be appropriate in each case, and the reduced penalties “would not adequately effectuate ‘the deterrent’ purpose underlying the Act’s penalty assessment scheme.” Judges are required by Commission precedent to provide a sufficient explanation when a penalty assessment diverges substantially from a proposed penalty, and the information provided by the Secretary did not allow the judge to provide a sufficient explanation for the penalty reduction. Black Beauty Coal Co., 3/16/2010, Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-327, 32 FMSHRC 714 (ALJ Miller).
A settlement case was certified for interlocutory review on the issue of whether or not the Secretary must provide sufficient facts and information to justify the proposed penalty in the context of a settlement and in terms of the six statutory criteria found at section 110(i) of the Act. Since the Mine Act requires the Commission to assess all penalties and in doing so, consider the six criteria, it follows that the Commission must have the information needed to make the assessment. The Secretary argues that she is not required to submit such information to the Commission and therefore appeals the order issued requiring the submission of facts that relate to the penalty criteria. Whether the Secretary must provide information is a controlling question of law in resolving the many cases that are proposed for settlement and is an important matter to resolve. Black Beauty Coal Co., 3/16/2010, Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-327, 32 FMSHRC 714 (ALJ Miller).
A settlement was approved after the Secretary offered additional information. The Secretary sought to vacate 13 citations in a civil penalty proceeding. The ALJ had initially rejected the settlement until the Secretary gave “legitimate reasons for vacating the citations, saying the record had been incomplete and did not provide adequate reasons upon which to base a settlement approval. While the Secretary has “unreviewable prosecutorial discretion to vacate citations after issuance,” the ALJ noted that in RBK Construction, the Secretary argued before the Commission “that 110(k) applies only to settlements of penalties, not to vacations of citations or orders.” 15 FMSHRC at 2101. The Secretary complied with the ALJ order by proffering legitimate reasons for vacating the citations in the August 31, 2009 letter. PC SAND & GRAVEL, Docket No. YORK 2008-104-M, 2/25/2010, 32 FMSHRC 235, (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
An operator and MSHA were ordered to submit additional information supporting a 74 percent reduction in penalties in a proposed settlement agreement. Judges must make sure that settlements are “consistent with Mine Act objectives,” and “the parties provided no evidence to suggest that the 74 percent reduction in assessed penalty supports the public’s interest.” The settlement proposed reducing the total penalty assessment for 11 violations – including one violation issued as a result of a serious injury – from $62,825 to $16,078. The motion stated that the reduction was based in part on the fact that the operator had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and stopped doing business when its mine properties were sold. “At a minimum, the parties must provide evidence to support the assertion that the settlement penalty is justified under each of the six [penalty] criteria.” Black Hawk Mining, Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-22 etc., 28 FMSHRC 82 (Feb. 28, 2006), 13 MSHN 142 (March 6, 2006) (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
A settlement agreement was rejected because it was signed by an agency “law clerk” and not by an attorney in the Solicitor’s office. The settlement also was defective because the representations in the motion, that the operator was unaware of the violation, conflicted with statements in the citation. The motion also contained “generalized and unsupported statements” which did not justify an 85 percent penalty reduction. Bowen Industries Inc., Docket No. CENT 98-268-M, 21 FMSHRC 468 (April 26, 1999) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement motion proposing to reduce MSHA’s proposed fine for a mine manager’s violation of §56.6604 from $1,500 to $750 in a Sec. 110(c) case was denied. The settlement motion did not mention the six penalty criteria, and the mine manager promised to read materials, such as the pertinent standards and training manual, “that he should have already read.” Marc Bowers, employed by Paterson Materials Corp., Docket No. YORK 99-11, 21 FMSHRC 409 (March 1, 1999), 6 MSHN 148 (March 19, 1999) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement proposing to reduce MSHA’s civil penalty for a violation of §75.400 from $557 to $350 was denied, because the motion provided “no explanation to support its recommendation.” Ohio Valley Coal Co., Docket No. LAKE 98-237 (unpublished), 6 MSHN 60 (Jan. 22, 1999) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A judge rejected a 50% reduction in a penalty where the Secretary and operator’s joint motion stated the settlement was “fair and equitable,” but offered no reason for the reduction. Under Commission rules, the moving party must explain the reasons for the proposed settlement, and in this case no reasons were given. WEBSTER DUDLEY SAND AND GRAVEL, INC., 2/18/98, Docket No. YORK 97-29-M (ALJ Barbour).
A settlement motion proposing to reduce MSHA’s proposed $1,000 penalty for a violation of § 56.9314 to $300 was disapproved. The operator was cited because a road base stockpile was not trimmed, resulting in an injury. In the motion, the agency said the company’s negligence remained unchanged, but the operator did everything possible to avoid the hazard from causing injury. These representations are inadequate because no details of the alleged mitigating circumstances were provided. A 70 percent reduction in the penalty cannot be approved where the degree of negligence remains unchanged, especially where the violation caused an injury. The fact that the company is small and has no prior history of violations cannot alone justify the large penalty reduction. Rohl Limestone Inc., Docket No. LAKE 95-323-M, 17 FMSHRC 2162 (Nov. 30, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement proposing to reduce penalties for two violations in a Sec. 110(c) case from $700 to $100 was rejected. MSHA offered “no basis” for the large penalty reductions and stated only that the number of workers exposed to the violations was very low. This statement contradicted the inspector’s findings. Also, a $50 penalty “is normally reserved for non-serious violations,” and the narrative findings attached to the penalty petitions stated that the violations of guarding standard, § 56.14107(a), and housekeeping standard, § 56.20003(a), were “serious.” Bennie Wayne Curtis, employed by Canyon Country Enterprises, Docket No. WEST 95-385-M, 17 FMSHRC 1810 (Oct. 23, 1995), 2 MSHN 609 (Nov. 3, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
MSHA’s motion to hold an operator in default after it refused to sign a settlement agreement it had reached with the agency was granted. The company was found to have been “recalcitrant at all stages” of the proceeding, and MSHA’s proposed penalties totaling $35,000 for seven violations were assessed. Two “show cause” orders were issued before the operator responded to MSHA’s penalty assessment. Also, the operator failed to respond to MSHA’s request for a default judgment and refused post office delivery of another “show cause” order. D&E Coal Co., Docket No. KENT 94-1242, 17 FMSHRC 1736 (Oct. 19, 1995), 2 MSHN 609 (Nov. 3, 1995)(ALJ Hodgdon).
A settlement motion in which the Solicitor’s Office said it would withdraw a proposed $2,000 penalty for the operator’s violation of Sec. 103(a) of the Mine Act for interfering with an MSHA investigation was rejected. MSHA had charged that the operator’s president refused to be interviewed by an MSHA special investigator, refused to allow his foreman to be interviewed, and refused to provide the names of miners present when an earlier citation was issued. The settlement motion stated that the company president has cooperated with subsequent MSHA inspections. However, it was found that the facts in the parties’ motion were insufficient to support eliminating the penalty. Also, Sec. 110(a) of the Mine Act requires some civil penalty assessment for a violation. Cedar Creek Quarries Inc., Docket No. WEST 94-637-M, 17 FMSHRC 830 (May 9, 1995), 2 MSHN 398 (July 14, 1995) (ALJ Hodgdon).
A settlement motion in which the Solicitor’s Office agreed to delete MSHA’s “unwarrantable failure” charges for violations of the combustible materials standard and the operator’s ventilation plan was approved. The agency agreed to modify the two Sec. 104(d)(1) orders to Sec. 104(a) S&S citations after it was pointed out that the violations were found during the shift immediately following their notation in the preshift examination book. Operators must be given “a reasonable period of time” to correct conditions before they can be charged with “unwarrantable failure.” In this case, it was noted that the operator began cleaning up the coal dust accumulations about two and one-half hours after they were noted in the preshift examination book. MSHA agreed to reduce the penalty from $6,500 to $2,072 for each violation. Consolidation Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEVA 94-216 et al., 17 FMSHRC 1068 (June 22, 1995), 2 MSHN 375 (June 30, 1995) (ALJ Feldman).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties totaling $15,000 for two violations to $6,000 was rejected, and the settlement motion was found to be “woefully inadequate” and “particularly egregious” because the violations were related to a fatality. The Solicitor’s settlement motion sought a 60% reduction in the proposed penalties and failed to contain any analysis of the facts. The motion merely stated that preparation for the hearing revealed that the operator’s negligence was less than the original “moderate” charge. If the Solicitor thinks the company’s negligence is less than “moderate” for fatality violations, it must explain the circumstances leading to its conclusion. The Solicitor’s penalty proposal also failed to include a copy of the “narrative findings” that the agency prepares for special assessment cases. Kiewit Mining Group Inc., Docket No. WEST 95-214-M, (not published), 2 MSHN 349 (June 16, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties totaling $5,700 for a violation of § 75.342(a)(4) and a violation of § 75.202(a) to $2,298 was rejected for the second time. The parties stated they would present substantial evidence at the hearing to support their differing positions as to the level of negligence and the gravity of the violations and said the settlement was a “compromise.” Under the proposed settlement, the S&S and high negligence findings would remain, but the proposed penalties would be greatly reduced. It was found that the parties “want it both ways” and failed to understand that the findings in the citation are the same as the penalty criteria in Sec. 110(i) of the Mine Act the commission and its judges are required to observe. The proposed settlement is “too low for the level of the charges made and provides no basis to reduce the original assessment.” Jericol Mining Inc., Docket No. KENT 94-957, 17 FMSHRC 833 (May 16, 1995), 2 MSHN 319 (June 2, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $1,500 penalty for a violation of “new task” training regulation, § 48.7(a), to $800 was rejected. The Solicitor must do more than say that the parties dispute the degree of gravity when it seeks to cut the original penalty almost in half. Amax Coal Co., Docket No. LAKE 95-124, 17 FMSHRC 682 (April 13, 1995), 2 MSHN 239 (April 21, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $1,000 penalty for a violation of Sec. 103(a) of the Mine Act to $320 was disapproved in a case charging that the operator’s president and vice president threatened the inspector and ordered him off mine property. A settlement reducing MSHA’s proposed $2,000 penalty for a violation of travelways rule, § 56.11012, to $639 also was disapproved. The parties “offered absolutely no explanation for the large reductions” in the penalties, and the violations are “egregious and serious.” Harbor Rock Inc., Docket No. WEST 95-64-M, 17 FMSHRC 492 (March 16, 1995), 2 MSHN 174 (March 24, 1995) (Chief ALJ Melick).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties for two violations of roof support rules was disapproved because the motion “merely stated the operator’s position with respect to the violations” and the Solicitor did not indicate whether it agreed with the company’s assertions. The parties were ordered to explain the proposed penalty reductions in light of the six penalty criteria set forth in Sec. 110(i) of the Mine Act. The parties had sought a reduction in the proposed $431 penalty for a violation of § 75.202(a) to $50, and also had sought a reduction in the proposed $595 penalty for a violation of § 75.203(a) to $395. Jericol Mining Inc., Docket No. KENT 95-31, 17 FMSHRC 489 (March 16, 1995), 2 MSHN 175 (March 24, 1995) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $1,779 penalty for a violation of the methane monitor standard, § 75.342(b)(2), to $50 was disapproved. The settlement motion merely stated the company’s position with respect to the violation and did not state whether MSHA agreed with the company’s claims. A settlement must be justified under the six penalty criteria listed in Sec. 110(i) of the Mine Act. Jericol Mining Inc., Docket No. KENT 95-32, 17 FMSHRC 486 (March 16, 1995), 2 MSHN 175 (March 24, 1995)(Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement was rejected where penalties were lowered from $3,000 to $2,000 for two violations. The penalties would have been lowered, but the citations remain as written. In one case, the methane monitor on a continuous miner would not deenergize the control circuit because the monitor module was disconnected from the control circuit. The continuous miner had been operating for four hours. The inspector had also detected methane at seals deeper in the mine from where the miner was cutting coal. According to the joint motion filed by the parties, the operator’s witnesses would challenge the inspector’s assessment of the presence of methane. The operator would present testimony that a repairman was working on the monitor at the time the citation was issued and that parts for the repair were delivered while the inspector was on the section. In addition, the foreman was taking regular methane readings with a hand-held methane detector during the time the monitor was being repaired. In the second violation, there were loose ribs along the haulage roadway. According to the parties, the operator would present evidence that the ribs were more stable because they could not be pulled down single-handedly but required the use of a four foot bar used to pry down slate. The joint settlement motion merely set forth unresolved conflicts between the parties on the evidence and failed to justify the reduction in penalties based on the six penalty criteria listed in Sec. 110(i) of the Mine Act. Jericol Mining Inc., Docket No. KENT 94-957, 17 FMSHRC 244 (Feb. 7, 1995), 2 MSHN 125 (Feb. 24, 1995)(Chief ALJ Merlin).
An operator’s request for declaratory relief was rejected. The operator objected when the Solicitor sought to withdraw MSHA’s penalty petition on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish the violation. In its 1993 decision in RBK Construction Inc. (15 FMSHRC 2099), the Commission held that MSHA has the authority to vacate its citations without the Commission’s approval. Also, it was found that this was not an appropriate case in which the commission should exercise its discretionary authority to issue declaratory relief. FMC Wyoming Corp., Docket No. 94-302-M, (unpublished) (Jan. 18, 1995), 2 MSHN 69 (Jan. 27, 1995) (ALJ Cetti).
A settlement was rejected for a violation where a longwall foreman was crushed to death when manually collapsing longwall shields that had been set up on the surface for demonstration and training purposes. The foreman attempted to block one of the canopies with a forklift, and then positioned himself under the canopy between the linkage bars and hydraulicjacks. He then removed the hydraulic staple lock and pressure relief valve capsule from the rear canopy tilt jack. The rear of the canopy collapsed on him, crushing him to death. The company was cited for an S&S and unwarrantable failure violation under §77.405(b), and all longwall miners had to be retrained in safe methods for operating and handling longwall shields. The Secretary and company sought to settle this violation by converting the 104(d)(2) order to a 104(a) Citation, modifying the allegation to charge moderate negligence instead of a high degree of negligence, and reducing the civil penalty from $35,000 to $10,000. The motion lacked facts sufficient to conclude that the attempted use of a forklift to block a longwall canopy was only ordinary negligence. The forklift did not hold, and the foreman was killed as a result of his misjudgment that it would hold. Because of the extreme safety risk involved in substituting a forklift for proper blocking devices, the facts point to gross negligence and an unwarrantable violation. MINGO LOGAN COAL CO., Docket No. WEVA 93-36-R, 16 FMSHRC 2194 (Oct. 10, 1994)(ALJ Fauver).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties totaling $7,000 for two violations of § 56.16002 to $5,250 was rejected. The two violations in this case contributed to an accident which caused an injury to a miner where a work platform was not provided for the top of the two washed concrete sand storage silos, and a plant repairman entered a washed concrete sand bunker without wearing a safety belt and lifeline. The Solicitor gave no reason to support the proposed reductions in the penalties. The violations in this case were serious and contributed to an accident resulting in an injury. The Solicitor must provide a basis to approve such a settlement, especially because an injury occurred. The fact that the suggested penalties remain substantial does not in and of itself, warrant approval. Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand & Gravel Co., Docket No. WEST 94-478-M, 16 FMSHRC 1926 (Aug. 29, 1994), 1 MSHN 466 (Sept. 9, 1994) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $400 penalty for a violation of reporting regulation § 50.10 to $250 was disapproved because the agency failed to refer to the six penalty criteria set forth in Sec. 110(i) of the Mine Act. The operator was initially charged with “high” negligence. MSHA’s settlement motion stated that the company’s negligence remained the same and proposed the reduction because the parties did not want to pursue further litigation. This is insufficient to support a penalty reduction. Columbia Quarry Co., Docket No. LAKE 94-155-M, 16 FMSHRC 1924 (Aug. 29, 1994), 1 MSHN 466 (Sept. 9, 1994) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
MSHA’s motion to withdraw a citation for an alleged violation of § 57.3360 and its proposed $8,000 penalty was granted. MSHA decided to withdraw its citation after the operator presented testimony that, prior to a fatal ground fall accident at its underground potash mine, there were no detectable ground conditions or mining experience that indicated that ground support was necessary. Mississippi Potash Inc., Docket No. CENT 92-212-M, 16 FMSHRC 1330 (June 29, 1994), 1 MSHN 381 (July 15, 1994) (ALJ Cetti).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $4,000 penalty for a violation of electrical standard, § 56.12016, to $1,000 was disapproved because the agency failed to provide sufficient information to justify the reduction. MSHA’s settlement motion attributed the miner’s accident to a “communication mix-up” but did not explain what the mix-up was, who was involved and why it was not attributable to the operator. Kiewit Western Co., Docket No. WEST 94-213-M, 16 FMSHRC 1401 (June 15, 1994), 1 MSHN 349 (July 1, 1994) (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement was disapproved where the Solicitor gave no reasons to support the proposed reductions in MSHA’s penalties. The Solicitor sought to reduce MSHA penalties for four S&S and “unwarrantable” violations from $7,500 to $5,250. The violations were specially assessed and were serious, and the fact that the suggested penalties remain substantial is not enough to warrant approval. Fletcher Granite Co., Docket No. YORK 93-149-M, 16 FMSHRC 1203 (May 27, 1994), 1 MSHN 327 (June 17, 1994)(Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties totaling $1,100 for two violations of seat belt standard, Sec. 56.14131(a), to penalties totaling $256 was approved. An MSHA inspector issued a Sec. 104(d)(1) citation and order because two haulage truck drivers failed to wear provided seat belts. However, after the hearing MSHA agreed that the operator’s negligence was not “unwarrantable” and the citation and order were amended to Sec. 104(a) S&S citations. Delaware Valley Landscape Inc., 15 FMSHRC 674 (April 7, 1993) (ALJ Koutras).
A settlement agreement in which the operator agreed to pay MSHA’s proposed $15,000 civil penalty for a violation of Sec. 75.1725(a) was approved. MSHA’s investigation of a fatal accident revealed that a closed flow control valve disabled the remote operation of a scoop’s service braking system and caused the accident. Peabody Coal Co., 15 FMSHRC 581 (March 31, 1993) (ALJ Feldman).
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $12,000 penalty for each of two violations of training regulation Sec. 48.7(a)(3) to $200 for each violation was approved. MSHA issued the citation after its investigation of a fatal accident revealed that a closed flow control valve disabled the remote operation of a scoop’s service braking system. However, the MSHA conference officer said that even extensive training would not have prevented the accident because the operator had no advance knowledge from the manufacturer of the significance or existence of the flow control valve. Ibid.
A proposed settlement agreement submitted by the Solicitor’s Office that reduced MSHA’s original $690 penalty proposal for a violation of Sec. 56.12067 to $50 was rejected. The citation stated the fence surrounding an electrical substation was not six feet high as required by the standard, and the inspector found that contact with the exposed energized high-voltage components might result in a fatality. In its motion for settlement approval, the Solicitor alleged the operator’s negligence was lower than originally assessed and the violation was not S&S. However, the agency gave no reasons to support these conclusions and instead filed the “usual form motion.” Concrete Materials, (Feb. 18, 1993) Docket No. CENT 92-358-M, 15 FMSHRC 337 (order denying settlement)(Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement was denied where a company conceded a violation of §77.205, but the settlement would have removed the S&S finding. The MSHA inspector observed that the travelway to the electrical switch box was obstructed by a wooden pallet and old desks, creating a tripping hazard. The motion states that, “while the pallet lay horizontal under the switch box, thus creating a possible tripping hazard, the desks were not directly in front of the box, and less likely to create a tripping hazard. Thus, the likelihood of being injured is less that originally assessed.” The motion does not state or indicate that the pallet and desks did not present a substantial possibility of causing a tripping accident. Accordingly, the proposal to reduce the charge to a non-S&S violation was denied. CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., March 26, 1992, Docket No. PENN 91-1375 (ALJ Fauver).
A settlement motion was denied where the motion sought to reduce the alleged violation from a “significant and substantial” violation to a “non-significant and substantial” violation. The company violated §75.604(b) where the trailing cable to a roof bolter was not “effectively insulated, and [did] not effectively exclude moisture” because there was “an opening measuring 1/2 inch by 1 1/2 inches through the outer insulated jacket, and the inner insulated conductors [were] exposed.” The settlement motion states that the exposed inner insulation of the cable was intact and, therefore, injury was “unlikely to occur.” However, it does state or indicate that the opening in the cable did not present a substantial possibility of injury, e.g., the exposure of the inner insulation rendering it vulnerable to cutting or breaking, with moisture reaching live conductors, by forces that would not penetrate the inner insulation if the outer jacket were intact, or the possibility of moisture entering the outer jacket reaching an existing but unseen nick in the inner insulation. The parties must show sufficient facts to warrant such a change to non-S&S. TUNNELTON MINING CO., 3/11/1992, Docket No. PENN 91-1456 (order denying settlement) (ALJ Fauver).
A settlement was rejected that would have removed an S&S finding for a violation of §77.1606(c) on a truck used to haul explosives where the steering section was loose and moving sideways about one-half inch. The motion stated that the company performed regular maintenance, and a reasonable likelihood of serious injury did not exist if normal mining operations had continued, because the driver may have been able to feel the steering coming loose prior to any effect on the actual steering of the truck, and the violation would have been corrected. The motion misconstrues the term “normal mining conditions.” The settlement if approved would render the Act and safety and health regulations a hollow mechanism if violations were to be redesignated as non-S&S violations on the ground that the operator might detect and correct the violation before an accident occurs. EL DORADO CHEMICAL CO., Docket No. WEVA 91-1988, Nov. 18, 1991, 13 FMSHRC 1850 (ALJ Fauver).
A settlement was denied where there was no documentation that a violation of §56.14104 had occurred, and MSHA’s accident report clearly stated that a violation of §56.14104 had occurred. S.L. PETERS CONSTRUCTION, 5/9/1990, 12 FMSHRC 1154 (ALJ Melick).
Where a miner’s representative is a party in a civil penalty proceeding, a settlement of the proceeding is only valid if the miner’s representative has agreed to it. FMC Wyoming Corp., WEST 86-43-RM, et al., 12 FMSHRC 1478 (July 27, 1990) (ALJ Cetti) (on remand).
A settlement was rejected where the Secretary sought to remove an S&S designation on several citations where there had been a possibility of injury. MOBERLY STONE CO., 10/3/89, Docket No. CENT 89-81-M; 12 FMSHRC 2111 (ALJ Broderick).
Three settlements were rejected where supported by “boilerplate language” regarding negligence and probability of harm that was contrary to pleadings and narrative findings of original citations and imminent danger orders, where a miner was injured in a conveyor belt accident, and unsafe highwalls were found. The settlement motion contained unexplained assertions by the parties that there “was little or no negligence,” and are totally without foundation. The inspectors found that the violations were the result of a high degree of negligence, and in one case, the inspector made a negligence finding of reckless disregard. If the parties believe that these defenses have merit, or should be considered by the judge in mitigation of the civil penalties, it is incumbent on the parties to place these arguments clearly and succinctly before the judge for consideration. Reliance on boilerplate contradictory language that bears no rational or reasonable relationship to the particular facts of a case is unacceptable. El Paso Sand Products, Inc., CENT 88-53-M, 88-65-M, 88-79-M, 88-83-M, 88-104-M, 88-141-M, 11 FMSHRC 265 (Feb. 9, 1989) (ALJ Koutras) (Order).
A settlement was rejected where there was a violation of a miner standing on a conveyor belt, shoveling material and not wearing a safety belt. No handrails were on the belt. It was originally assessed at $227 and the parties proposed to settle for $151 because “Defendant states this was an isolated incident . . . there was little or no negligence involved since the violation could not have been reasonably predicted.” The proposed reduction was not justified by the motion. D. P. FROST CONSTRUCTION CO., Aug. 5, 1986, Docket No. CENT 86-64-M; 8 FMSHRC 1162 (ALJ Broderick).
Where the language of a settlement agreement is plain, complete and unambiguous, a hearing to determine the parties’ “actual or secret intention” is not necessary. UMWA, Local Union 1769, Dist. 22 v. Utah Power & Light Co., WEST 87-86-C, 12 FMSHRC 1548 (Aug. 23, 1990) aff’g 11 FMSHRC 1641 (Sept. 1 , 1989) (ALJ Morris).
Where operator and the Secy., the real parties in interest, state their mutual desire to terminate litigation and the operator agrees to pay in full the penalty originally proposed by the Secy., and no other interested party objects, the Commission has the authority to vacate its direction for review, its prior decision in the case and the ALJ decision in the case. Birchfield Mining Co., WEVA 87-272, 11 FMSHRC 1428 (Aug. 21) (Order), vacating per settlement 11 FMSHRC 31 (Jan. 27, 1989).
A settlement motion may not contain language that is contrary to the Mine Act. The operator agreed to pay the penalty in full, but the motion contained a disclaimer that the settlement was not an admission by the operator. The disclaimer stated that: “No party other than the parties to this agreement may use this settlement agreement for any purpose. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, it is specifically understood that respondent enters into this stipulation in reliance on its sole and exclusive purpose being to expeditiously and inexpensively resolve a single item of administrative litigation without affecting in any way any other cause, claim or litigation, of either a private or governmental nature, that may now be pending or that may be initiated in the future. Moreover, it is not intended that this stipulation or the settlement resulting therefrom establish a standard of care or adjudge compliance therewith. By this settlement, the parties do not intend to be collaterally estopped from raising any issue or defense in any civil proceeding.” The judge found the disclaimer to be so contradictory and ambiguous, that it was in violation of the principles set forth by the Commission in Amax Lead Company of Missouri, 4 FMSHRC 975 (1982). (Decision denying settlement motion KENTUCKY MOUNTAIN RESERVE, INC., 1/12/89, Docket No. KENT 88-157, 11 FMSHRC 259 (ALJ Melick).
A 25% reduction in a proposed $4,000 penalty where a miner was electrocuted was rejected. The Secretary stated the company demonstrated extraordinary good faith in achieving rapid compliance; did not have a lengthy history of prior violations; was a small business; the company said it would comply with the Mine Act, and agreed to pay a $3,000 fine. In rejecting the settlement, the ALJ said the information provided by the Motion was totally inadequate for an independent and proper evaluation of the alleged violation under the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. DEVELOPERS INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CORP., 2/8/89, Docket No. CENT 88-132-M, 11 FMSHRC 263 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
Absent objection or prejudice to operator, Secy.’s motion to vacate citation and dismiss proceeding will be granted if adequate reasons are shown. Southern Ohio Coal Co., LAKE 87-95-R, 10 FMSHRC 1669 (Dec. 13, 1988).
A settlement motion was rejected for a violation of §56.9054 where a haul truck driver was killed when his truck went over the edge of a stockpile. No berms, bumper blocks, safety locks, or similar means to prevent overtravel and overturning was provided at this dumping location at the time the incident occurred. The reduction in the proposed penalty – from $8,000 to $5,000 – was sought in part, because during the afternoon prior to the date of the accident a berm had been constructed at the cited location. However, at the time of the accident material was removed from the berm, and had not been totally replaced leaving a berm that was not adequate to prevent an accident. It was also noted the operator had no assessed violation in the preceding 24 month period, and the Secretary sought a reduction in negligence. The settlement was rejected since the citation at bar set forth a serious regulatory violation leading to a fatality. The settlement motion confirmed that the fatality was the result of a “high degree” of negligence, and the purported excuse or justification for reducing the level of negligence was incomprehensible. Material Service Corp., 10/4/88, Docket No. LAKE 88-122-M, 10 FMSHRC 1666 (ALJ Melick).
Where motion for approval of settlement for numerous violations used the same language without facts or rationale to support the recommendation for each violation, the motion was denied because of insufficient information to evaluate the appropriateness of each penalty. Columbia Portland Cement Co., LAKE 88-54-M, 10 FMSHRC 1363 (Sept. 7, 1988) (ALJ Merlin) (Order).
A proposed settlement was rejected for a violation of §56.9073 where a backhoe was found with bad brakes and a broken tie rod broken away from the frame on the left side of the vehicle, parked at the shop area of the mine. The vehicle had not been tagged to prevent anyone from operating it, as required by the cited standard. The Secretary proposed lowering MSHA’s fine from $276 to $20, and modifying the likelihood of injury from “reasonably likely,” with permanently disabling results to “unlikely.” In rejecting the settlement, the ALJ said he failed to understand the reasoning offered by the parties – that the probability of injury was over-evaluated and few employees were exposed to the risk. Boorhem-Fields Inc., 8/29/1988, Docket No. CENT 88-56-M, 10 FMSHRC 1121 (Aug. 29, 1988) (ALJ Koutras).
A settlement was rejected for a violation of §75.1720 where six miners were not wearing distinctively colored hard hats. The penalty was originally assessed at $311 and the proposed settlement was for $250. In her motion, the Solicitor asserts that, among other things, the reduction is warranted because gravity was less than originally thought. The motion states that the employees involved were maintenance personnel who were temporarily assigned to the mine to repair equipment. The motion further states that at all times these employees were accompanied by a superintendent who “was aware of their lack of experience and certification.” According to the Solicitor’s motion, there was little likelihood that these miners would be confused with experienced miners. The Chief ALJ said he could not conclude that the recommended reduction in the penalty was warranted. If anything, the facts as set forth by the Solicitor make the violation appear more serious and highlight the operators negligence. The operator should have taken particular care because the miners were inexperienced. In addition, their inexperience and lack of certification put them at greater peril and therefore, increased gravity. Consolidation Coal Co., 6/22/88, Docket No. WEVA 88-90, 10 FMSHRC 779 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
A settlement for a violation of §56.9040(a) was rejected where two miners had been riding in the front bucket of a Case 580D loader and back-hoe. The penalty was originally assessed at $300 and the proposed settlement was for $150. The parties claimed the 50% reduction in the originally assessed amount was justified because “negligence is less than was originally assessed.” However, no reasons were given to support this representation. EMKO CORP., 5/6/87, Docket No. WEST 87-42-M, 9 FMSHRC 926 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
Secy.’s motion to withdraw petition for penalty assessment to preserve integrity of compliance assistance visit procedure is denied because violation was proven, Secy. did not show basis why §110(a) requirement that penalties be assessed for violations should be waived, and there is no inequity from continuing action; civil penalty assessed for violation need not be lowered due to misstatements made by mine inspector. C.D. LIVINGSTON [ALJ (1986) WEST 85-55-M] 4 MSHC 1088.
A hearing was ordered and settlement rejected where MSHA and the operator agreed to the originally assessed penalty of $192 for a violation of §56.16001, and the Secretary and company had agreed to lower the negligence finding to “no negligence.” A miner was killed and another seriously injured when pipes, being moved by an independent contractor, slid from a stack and pinned the victims between pipe on the ground. MSHA’s accident report stated the direct cause of the accident was the failure to recognize the instability of the irregularly stacked pipe bundles. Possibly contributing to this accident was the fact that the crew members were not accustomed to working with pipe piled higher than 2 or 3 bundles. The fact that the pipes gave no indication of instability until they were touched, does not as the settlement motion suggests, warrant a finding of no negligence, or even low negligence. The motion further asserts the employees were adequately, trained, instructed and supervised and were experienced, but does not indicate whether it is referring to the operator’s employees who stacked the pipes or the independent contractor’s employees who removed them. The accident could have had one cause or multiple causes. The settlement motion was not “well reasoned,” and raised many questions which must be answered at a hearing on the record. Phelps Dodge Corp.- Tyrone Branch, 5/6/87, Docket No. CENT 87-2-M, 9 FMSHRC 920 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
Secy.’s motion to dismiss proceeding and to vacate citation issued for §75.308 (methane accumulations) violations is granted where Secy. stated that violation could not be proved since administrative law judge found foreman had checked methane concentration in affected area only 20 minutes before inspector performed his test; no true adversarial contest remains suitable for judicial resolution since Secy. declines to participate actively as party, operator acquiesced in Secy.’s motion, and public interest does not require decision on merits. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. [ALJ (1985) LAKE 83-36] 3 MSHC 1683.
A settlement was rejected where MSHA cited a company for accumulation of combustible materials, creating fire hazards. The second citation was issued for an unguarded drive chain and sprockets on a wall drill. The inspector indicated that negligence in both cases was moderate and that occurrence was reasonably likely. The $20 nominal penalty sought in the settlement indicates a lack of gravity. From the face of the two citations, and based upon the inspector’s statements, it appears that the violations 0were serious and that the operator was negligent. Under such circumstances, a nominal penalty would not be warranted. Energy Coal Corp., 7/18/83, Docket No. WEVA 83-63, 5 FMSHRC 718 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
— The fact that MSHA may have determined that a violation was not “significant and substantial” as that term presently is defined by the Commission, is not determinative or even relevant in settlement proceedings. Once Commission jurisdiction attaches, ALJ’s have their own statutory responsibilities to fulfill and discharge in overseeing settlements. This can only be done on the basis of an adequate record. Energy Coal Corp., 7/18/83, Docket No. WEVA 83-63, 5 FMSHRC 718 (Chief ALJ Merlin).
In case where operator had paid proposed penalties in full, Secy.’s filing of motion to withdraw its proposals for assessment of civil penalty not sufficient to dispose of case because Chief ALJ had ordered Secy. to file motion for approval of settlement; since Secy. failed to follow proper procedure, files may be examined by ALJ to determine whether penalties were properly proposed. Scotts Branch Co. [ALJ (1984) KENT 83-46 et al.] 3 MSHC 1478.
Operator’s withdrawal of its request for hearing has technical effect of leaving matter before ALJ for approval because §110(k) of FMSHA provides that proposed penalty contested before Comm. cannot be compromised, mitigated, or settled without Comm. approval. Pyro Mining Co. [ALJ (1984) KENT 83-248 et al.] 3 MSHC 1487.
A settlement was rejected for a violation of §75.316 for having a metal stopping separating the belt conveyor entry and the intake escapeway in violation of the approved ventilation plan; and, a violation of §75.400 because of an accumulation of loose dry coal and float coal dust under and around the tailpiece. The accumulations were up to 24 inches deep, 14 feet long and 6 feet wide. The mine was idle and the belt was not in operation. Twelve miners including a foreman were working in the area. The Secretary sought to remove the inspector’s negligence findings, and lower the penalties from $158 and $112 to a “regular assessment” of $20 each. While the violations were not S&S, there was still moderate negligence on the part of the mine operator, who was negligent in permitting each of the violations to occur. The Commission is not bound by the Secretary’s regulations setting out how he proposes to assess penalties. United States Steel Mining Co., Inc., 5/17/83, Docket No. PENN 82-328, 5 FMSHRC 934 (ALJ Broderick).
A 20% reduction in a civil penalty was denied for a serious roof control violation where the operator took immediate disciplinary procedures, and fired a miner who refused to comply with the roof control plan. The ALJ ordered a reduced $400 penalty, with payment to be suspended. The ALJ said this was the first case in which a small nonunion operator undertook to impose the most severe of disciplinary sanctions for a miner’s grossly negligent refusal to comply with a mandatory safety standard, namely summary discharge for cause, and stated “If more operators could be persuaded to follow this course of action, there would be far fewer deaths and disabling injuries in the mines.” TAZCO, INC., 11/17/1980, Docket No. VA 80-121, 2 FMSHRC 3299 (ALJ Kennedy).
Operator’s denial that coal spillage constituted “accumulation” after ALJ’s disapproval of settlement entitled operator to hearing. Peabody Coal Co. [ALJ (1980) LAKE 80-25 et al.] 1 MSHC 2369.
After an independent evaluation and de novo review of circumstances, a settlement was approved reducing MSHA’s proposed penalties of $10,000 to $7,000 where the penalties are in accord with the Mine Act. Valley Camp Coal Co. [MORG 78-46-P] 1 FMSHRC 1011.
Legislative History of the Mine Act convincingly establishes that the presiding ALJ is charged with responsibility for making independent evaluations and de novo reviews of proposed settlements. It is the Commission’s duty to review enforcement activities of the Secretary of Labor. Valley Camp Coal Co. [MORG 78-46-P] 1 FMSHRC 1012.
Coal company’s untimely attempt to withdraw its contest of alleged violation at hearing and its offer to pay initial assessment is offer of settlement which must be concurred in by MSHA and approved by ALJ in civil penalty proceeding pursuant to Interim Comm. Rule. Western States Coal Corp. [ALJ (1979) DENV 78-521-P et al.] 1 MSHC 2059.
A settlement motion submitted by the Regional Solicitor’s Office was denied where the lack of a back-up alarm on a truck in violation of §77.1710(g) created a serious risk of death or injuries to men working on the site. The penalty proposed as the basis of the settlement was insufficient to deter future violations and ensure voluntary compliance. The ALJ rejected the Solicitor’s suggestion that the only function of the ALJ or the Commission is to “rubber stamp his settlement agreement.” Kaiser Steel Corp. [ALJ (May 25, 1979) DENV 79-340-P] 1 FMSHRC 422.
Specific information must be provided to an ALJ in a settlement where the parties sought to withdraw the petition for assessment of a civil penalty, and file a motion for a settlement: 1) Why the settlement would effectuate the purposes of the Act. 2.) Correspondence between the MSHA Assessment office and the company as to the violations involved including any narrative for a special assessment. 3.) The amount of the proposed settlement. 4.) A statements as to the operator’s 24 month inspection and violation history. 5.) Size of business. 6.) Negligence and gravity, demonstrated good faith in rapid compliance. 7.) Ability of the operator to stay in business. Arch Mineral Corp., [ ALJ (May 11, 1979) DENV 79-151-P, 1 FMSHRC 380 (ALJ Cook).
ALJ has responsibility to make independent evaluation of facts relating to six statutory criteria set out in §110(k) of FMSH Act of 1977 before approving or denying proposed settlement for violations of standards promulgated under Act. Pomerleau Bros., Inc. [ALJ (1979) WILK 79-4-PM] 1 MSHC 1770.
The plain language of section 110(k) and the legislative history of the Act convincingly establish that the Commission’s ALJs are charged with responsibility for making just an independent evaluation and de novo review of proposed settlements. To approve settlements merely on the basis of unsubstantiated representations of counsel with respect to gravity, negligence and the adequacy of the penalties imposed bv MSHA’s Assessment Office would be violative of the Commission’s duty “for reviewing the enforcement activities of the Secretary of Labor.” Pomerleau Bros., Inc. [ALJ (1979) WILK 79-4-PM] 1 MSHC 1770.
To remedy what was felt to be an abdication of enforcement responsibility, the 1977 Mine Act decreed that all settlements of violations, once contested, be made a matter of public record subject to approval by the Commission and public scrutiny by Congress, the miners, and the people. Thus, the Commission was given responsibility to approve settlements to “assure that the public interest is adequately protected.” It is evident that Congress imposed upon the Commission an obligation to eschew the role of rubber stamp and to exercise an independent and reasoned judgment in evaluating settlements with respect to both the six statutory criteria and the impact of payment of the proposed amounts upon future operator conduct and compliance. Pomerleau Bros., Inc. [ALJ (1979) WILK 79-4-PM] 1 MSHC 1770.
Congress has decreed that the need to save litigation expenses must play “no role” in determining settlement amounts. Pomerleau Bros., Inc. [ALJ (1979) WILK 79-4-PM] 1 MSHC 1770.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Ellen Smith. Bookmark the permalink.

References: v. 
 § 820
 § 2700
 § 2700
 § 2700
 § 2700
 v. 
 § 77
 § 48
 v. 
 §75
 §75
 §75
 §75
 § 2700
 §50
 §50
 §50
 §50
 §56
 §56
 §56
 §56
 §75
 § 56
 § 56
 § 56
 § 75
 § 75
 § 48
 § 56
 § 75
 § 75
 § 75
 §77
 § 56
 § 50
 § 57
 § 56
 §77
 §75
 §77
 §56
 §56
 v. 
 §56
 §56
 §75
 §56
 §110
 §56
 §75
 §110
 §75
 §75
 §77
 §110