Ezel / Agency Decisions / cent-88-53-m-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket CENT 88-53-M Decided February 13, 1989 Settled Judge George A. Koutras

El Paso Sand Products, Inc.

El Paso Sand Products, Inc. (FMSHRC CENT 88-53-M): Civil penalty settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1989 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 1989
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 decision 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 binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

El Paso Sand Products and the Secretary jointly asked the ALJ to approve a settlement of a civil penalty. The originally assessed penalty was $345, and the parties proposed a payment of $258.75. Judge George A. Koutras found the settlement reasonable and in the public interest. He approved it and ordered the respondent to pay within 30 days, after which the matter would be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the decision
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, and El Paso Sand Products was ordered to pay $258.75.
  • Key point: The ALJ approved a reduced civil penalty after finding the proposed settlement reasonable and in the public interest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. EL PASO SAND
DDATE:
19890213
TTEXT:

Page 2

~236
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENATY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. CENT 88-53-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 41-00046-05520

      v.                             El Paso Quarry & Plant

EL PASO SAND PRODUCTS, INC.,
RESPONDENT

             DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND
                     ORDER TO PAY

Before: Judge Koutras

 The parties have filed a motion to approve a settlement of

this case. The originally assessed civil penalty assessment for
the violation in question was $345, and the parties proposed to
settle the matter for a civil penalty payment of $258.75. In
support of their settlement proposal, the parties have submitted
arguments and information for my consideration, and after due
consideration of same, I conclude and find that the proposed
settlement is reasonable and in the public interest. The motion
IS GRANTED and the settlement IS APPROVED.

                           ORDER

 The respondent IS ORDERED to pay $258.75 to MSHA within

thirty (30) days of the date of this decision and order, and upon
receipt of payment by MSHA, this matter is dismissed.

                             George A. Koutras
                             Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1989, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.