Source: http://www.minesafety.com/2012/10/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:38:50+00:00

Document:
FMSHRC Settlements: What’s the Law?
Settlement rejections from Commission ALJs is nothing new. However, it gets a little tiresome after awhile, not to say a huge waste of government resources, when the significant lowering of a penalty or finding has no explanation attached. As a reporter, and someone who has to “digest” the legal decisions, its a frustrating process.
So, for all of you attorneys out there, or interested parties, here are some summaries so you can get a clear picture of what’s required when you file a settlement motion with a Commission ALJ. And, by the way, step one is to go through all of the civil penalty criteria if you don’t want your settlment rejected.
CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., 7/12/10, Docket No. PENN 2009-803, 17 MSHN 342 (July 14, 2010) (unpublished) (ALJ Moran).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.
ALASKA MECHANICAL INC., 6/30/2010, 32 FMSHRC 738 (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
PC SAND & GRAVEL, Docket No. YORK 2008-104-M, 32 FMSHRC 235, (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
A settlement was approved where the Solicitor’s Office offered additional information on the withdrawal of 13 citations. 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.
BLACK HAWK MINING, Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-22 etc., 28 FMSHRC 82 (Feb. 28, 2006), 13 MSHN 142 (March 6, 2006) (Chief ALJ Lesnick).
OHIO VALLEY COAL CO., Docket No. LAKE 98-237 (unpublished), 6 MSHN 60 (Jan. 22, 1999) (Chief ALJ Merlin).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.
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 Solicitor 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% 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.
A settlement was rejected in which the Solicitor said he 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. 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.
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 $15,000 for two violations to $6,000 was rejected. 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.
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 $1,500 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.
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.
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 rejected. 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.
A settlement agreement was rejected where penalties were lowered from $3,000 to $2,000 for two violations, but the citations remained 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 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 Solicitor’s Office and company, the operator’s witnesses would challenge the inspector’s assessment of the presence of methane. 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.
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 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 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.
A settlement agreement reducing MSHA’s proposed $400 penalty for a violation of reporting regulation §50.10 to $250 was disapproved because the Solicitor 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. The Solicitor’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.
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 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.
A settlement was rejected where four violations were all designated as S&S and found to be a result of unwarrantable failure on the part of the operator. In addition, the violations were specially assessed. The Solicitor gave no reasons to support the proposed reductions in the penalties. Where the violations are serious and the operator’s conduct has been characterized as unwarrantable, the Solicitor must provide a basis to support the settlements for which the Secretary seeks approval. The fact that the suggested penalties remain substantial does not in and of itself, warrant approval.
CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., WEVA 91-43, 13 FMSHRC 748 (Apr. 30, 1991) (ALJ Fauver).
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.
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.
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).
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.
Proposed settlements for 19 citations were rejected where the same language was used in each without facts or rationale to support the recommendation for each violation. Some violations could have resulted in permanent disability, lost workdays or restricted duty. The ALJ said he had “particular difficulty” in approving a penalty reduction when the projected injury is permanent disability, lost workdays or restricted duty.

References: §75
 § 56
 §48
 §75
 §75
 § 75
 §56
 §50
 §56
 §75
 §75