Beech Fork Processing, Inc. (ALJ decision, November 20, 1990)

Plain-English summary

Beech Fork Processing faced penalties across three dockets involving 39 violations. The parties proposed reducing the total assessment from $10,123 to $8,000 because the operator was experiencing financial difficulties and might have been forced to stop operating if it had to pay the full amount. Judge James A. Broderick approved the settlement under the criteria in Section 110(i) of the Act. The operator was ordered to pay $1,000 on December 1, 1990, followed by $1,000 per month until the $8,000 total was paid.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, reducing the total assessment to $8,000 with an installment schedule.
• Key point: An operator's inability to pay can support a negotiated penalty settlement when considered under the statutory criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. BEECH FORK PROCESSING
DDATE:
19901120
TTEXT:

Page 2

~2483
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 90-87
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 15-16162-03542

v. Docket No. KENT 90-88
A.C. No. 15-16162-03525
BEECH FORK PROCESSING, INC.,
RESPONDENT
Docket No. KENT 90-89
A.C. No. 15-16162-03526

Beech Fork Mine No. 1

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Broderick

On November 9, 1990, the parties filed a Joint Motion for approval of a settlement reached by the parties in these cases. The violations were originally assessed at $10,123 and the parties propose to settle for $8000.

The penalties for the twenty violations in Docket No. KENT 90-87, the agreement proposes to reduce from $5704 to $4288; the penalties for the fourteen violations in Docket No. KENT 90-88 from $3315 to $2608; for the penalties for the five violations in Docket No. KENT 90-89, originally assessed at $1104, the parties agree that the amount originally assessed will be paid.

The settlement is based on Respondent's inability to pay the amounts originally assessed. The motion states that Respondent is suffering financial difficulties, and might be forced to cease operation if it were required to pay the full penalties.

I have considered the motion in the light of the criteria in section 110(i) of the Act, and conclude that it should be approved.

Accordingly, the settlement is APPROVED and Respondent is ORDERED to pay the sum of $8000 as follows:

Page 3

~2484
$1000 on December 1, 1990, and $1000 per month thereafter until the $8000 is paid in its entirety.

James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge