Manalapan Mining Company (ALJ decision, November 17, 1994)

Manalapan Mining Company (FMSHRC KENT 93-614, KENT 93-615): Settlement approved on remand

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
KENT 93-614, KENT 93-615
Decided
November 17, 1994
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Checked against source
2026-08-13
Cited standards

What's the rule today?

This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1994
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.
ALJ decision, later reviewed by the Commission
This decision was issued by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge, but it was not the final word in the case: the Commission directed review, and the Commission's decision is the one citable as precedent.
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

Manalapan Mining Company faced civil penalty proceedings in two dockets involving Mine #6. After the Commission remanded the cases, Judge Avram Weisberger reviewed the parties' joint settlement motion and the record. He found that the settlement terms met the criteria in section 110(i) of the Mine Act and approved the motion. The company was ordered to pay a $5,922 civil penalty for the violations found in the cases.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provision: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, and Manalapan Mining was ordered to pay $5,922.
  • Key point: The judge approved the settlement after finding that its terms met the Mine Act's penalty criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

~2308

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 93-614 Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-16318-03576
v. :
: Docket No. KENT 93-615
MANALAPAN MINING COMPANY, : A. C. No. 15-16318-03577 Respondent :
: Mine #6

DECISION ON REMAND

Before: Judge Weisberger

On September 14, 1994, the Commission granted Respondent's petition for discretionary review of my decision in these cases. On October 25, 1994, the Commission remanded these cases to me to rule on the joint motion to approve settlement which had been filed before the Commission on October 14, 1994.

I have reviewed the motion, and the record in these cases.
I conclude that the terms of the motion meet the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

It is Ordered that, within 30 days of this decision, Respondent pay a civil penalty of $5,922 for the violations found in these cases.

Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Colleen A. Geraghty, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified Mail)

Susan C. Lawson, Esq., Buttermore, Turner, Lawson & Boggs, 111 South First Street, Harlan, KY 40831 (Certified Mail)

/efw

What controls your case today?

The Commission reviewed this case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts there and answers your situation under current law, 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