Ezel / Agency Decisions / CENT 85-93-M

Homestake Mining Company v. Secretary of Labor (ALJ decision, March 5, 1986)

Homestake Mining Company (FMSHRC CENT 85-93-M): Three citations vacated for lack of proof

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
CENT 85-93-M, CENT 85-118-M, CENT 86-24-RM
Decided
March 5, 1986
Presiding judge
Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
Outcome
Citations vacated
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Cited standards
29 C.F.R. § 2700.11
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1986
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This dismissal became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Three Homestake Mining proceedings were consolidated for hearing. At the start of the hearing, the Secretary moved to withdraw the penalty proposal in CENT 85-118-M for lack of proof. After further investigation, the Secretary moved to dismiss or vacate the citations in the other two dockets for the same reason. Judge Michael A. Lasher Jr. granted the motions, vacated all three citations and a related withdrawal order, and dismissed each docket. The order bars the Secretary from reinstating those same citations. It gives no account of the underlying mine conditions or the standards originally cited.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.11, the withdrawal procedure cited in the order; the underlying safety standards are not identified.
  • Outcome: Three citations and a related order vacated; all three dockets dismissed with prejudice; no penalties.
  • Key point: The Secretary withdrew the cases for failure of proof after the hearing began.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
HOMESTAKE MINING V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19860305
TTEXT:
~322

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY,
CONTEST PROCEEDING
CONTESTANT
Docket No. CENT 86-24-RM
v. Citation No. 2635045; 11/14/85

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Homestake Mine
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. CENT 85-93-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 39-00055-05545

v. Docket No. CENT 85-118-M
A.C. No. 39-00055-05550
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT Homestake Mine

DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appearances: Timothy M. Biddle, Esq., Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C., and Robert A. Amundson, Esq., Amundson, Fuller and Delaney, Lead, South Dakota, for Contestant/Respondent;
James H. Barkley, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent/Petitioner.

Before: Judge Lasher

Docket No. CENT 85Ä118ÄM. At the commencement of the hearing in this expedited and consolidated proceeding, the Secretary moved to withdraw his Proposal for Penalty Assessment for failure of proof. The motion was granted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.11 and the Section 107(a) Order and the Section 104(a) Citation No. 2358414 involved was ordered vacated on the record. Accordingly, this docket is DISMISSED.

Docket No. CENT 85Ä93ÄM. Subsequent to the commencement of the hearing, and after further investigation, the Secretary moved to dismiss this proceeding for failure of proof. The motion, construed to be to withdraw the Proposal for Penalty Assessment, was granted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 2700.11, and Citation No. 2097258 was ordered vacated on the record. Accordingly, this docket is DISMISSED.
~323
Docket No. CENT 86Ä24ÄRM. Subsequent to the commencement of the hearing, and after further investigation, the Secretary moved to vacate the Section 104(d)(1) Citation (No. 2635045) involved for failure of proof. The motion was granted on the record, and the subject Citation was ordered vacated. Accordingly, the docket is DISMISSED.

The vacation of the three citations set forth above are with prejudice to the Secretary to reinstitute the same in the future.

Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace