Pyro Mining Company (ALJ decision, July 29, 1991)

Pyro Mining Company (FMSHRC KENT 91-66): Settlement raises one penalty and vacates two enforcement actions

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
KENT 91-66, KENT 90-340-R, KENT 90-341-R, KENT 90-343-R
Decided
July 29, 1991
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-16
Cited standards

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1991 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 1991
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 order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Pyro Mining contested two orders and one citation arising at its Pyro No. 9 Slope, Wheatcroft Mine. The parties agreed to leave Order No. 3421655 in place while increasing its assessed penalty from $2,000 to $2,500. The Secretary also moved to vacate Order No. 3421656 and Citation No. 3419883, and the judge approved those terms. Judge Roy J. Maurer ordered Pyro Mining to pay $2,500 within 30 days, after which the civil penalty proceeding would be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the decision. The order cites the penalty criteria in 30 U.S.C. § 820(i).
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, one penalty was increased to $2,500, and one order and one citation were vacated.
  • Key point: The approved settlement resolved the related contests by preserving one order, vacating two enforcement actions, and setting a $2,500 payment.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
PYRO MINING v. SOL MSHA)
DDATE:
19910729
TTEXT:


Page 2

~1187

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
PYRO MINING COMPANY,
CONTESTANT
Docket No. KENT 90-340-R
v. Order No. 3421655; 6/9/90

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Docket No. KENT 90-341-R
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Order No. 3421656; 6/9/90
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT Docket No. KENT 90-343-R Citation No. 3419883; 6/12/90

Pyro No. 9 Slope, Wheatcroft Mine

Mine ID 15-13920

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 91-66
PETITIONER A. C. No. 15-13920-03684 v.
PYRO MINING COMPANY,
Pyro No. 9 Wheatcroft
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: W. F. Taylor, Esq., U. S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Secretary;
Robert I. Cusick, Esq., Louisville, Kentucky, for the Company.

Before: Judge Maurer

At the hearing, in Owensboro, Kentucky, on July 9, 1991, the parties jointly moved to settle these cases. They proposed to leave Order No. 3421655 (Docket No. KENT 90-340-R) as it is, and increase the assessed civil penalty from $2000 to $2500. The Secretary also moved, unopposed, to vacate Order No. 3421656 and Citation No. 3419883. I have considered the representations and


Page 3

~1188
documentation submitted in these cases, and I conclude that the proffered settlement, including the proposed vacation of the aforementioned order and citation is appropriate under the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of their settlement is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that the Pyro Mining Company pay a penalty of $2500 within 30 days of this Decision. Order No. 3421656 and Citation No. 3419883 are hereby VACATED. The above captioned contest proceedings have accordingly been rendered moot and are therefore DISMISSED. Upon payment of the civil penalty in full, the above captioned civil penalty proceeding is likewise DISMISSED.

Roy J. Maurer
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