Secretary of Labor v. Big Ridge, Inc. (ALJ decision, June 5, 2017)

Secretary of Labor v. Big Ridge, Inc. (FMSHRC LAKE 2009-57): $1,795 safeguard penalty ordered on remand

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
LAKE 2009-57
Decided
June 5, 2017
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Checked against source
2026-08-01
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This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case.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 2017
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

An earlier ALJ had vacated Citation No. 6674618 after finding that its underlying safeguard did not give Big Ridge adequate notice. The Commission reinstated the safeguard and remanded the case for assessment of a penalty. On remand, Big Ridge withdrew its contest and agreed to pay the Secretary's proposed penalty of $1,795 in full. Judge Jerold Feldman approved that disposition, ordered payment within 40 days, and dismissed the proceeding upon timely payment.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: Big Ridge was ordered to pay the agreed $1,795 penalty for the reinstated safeguard citation.
  • Commission history: The safeguard was reinstated and the penalty issue remanded in lake-2008-436-commission.
  • Key point: After the Commission reinstated the safeguard, the operator withdrew its remaining contest and accepted the proposed penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520N

Washington , DC 20004

June 5, 2017

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner,

v.

BIG RIDGE, INC.,

Respondent.

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. LAKE 2009-57

A.C. No. 11-03054-163984

Mine: Willow Lake Portal

DECISION ON
REMAND

AND

ORDER TO PAY

Before:            Judge Feldman

This remand matter concerns a Decision by Judge Melick vacating Citation No. 6674618 in Docket No. LAKE 2009-57. 33 FMSHC 2238, 2250 (Sept. 2011) (ALJ). Judge Melick has since retired. Judge Melick concluded that the underlying safeguard at issue in Citation No. 6674618 was invalid because it failed to provide the mine operator with adequate notice of the hazard addressed by the safeguard concerning the transportation of men and/or materials. Id.

On appeal, the Commission reinstated
the subject safeguard, holding that it provided the mine operator with adequate notice of the condition covered and the conduct required to satisfy the underlying notice of safeguard. 37 FMSHRC 213, 216 (Feb. 2015). Consequently, the Commission remanded this matter for assessment of the appropriate civil penalty. [1] Id. at 217. Action on the Commission’s remand was delayed due to administrative error. This matter was assigned to me on May 2, 2017, for disposition of the Commission’s remand.

On May 22, 2017, the parties filed
a Motion to Approve Penalty that reflects that Big Ridge has agreed to withdraw its contest of Citation No. 6674618, and pay the Secretary’s proposed penalty of $1,795.00 in full. Having considered the representations and documentation

submitted in this matter, I conclude that the proffered motion to order payment is appropriate under the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Mine Act.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that Big Ridge, Inc. pay the proposed $1,795.00 civil penalty within 40 days of the date of this Order in satisfaction of the safeguard at issue in Citation No. 6674618. [2] Upon receipt of timely payment, the captioned civil penalty proceeding in Docket No. LAKE 2009-57 IS DISMISSED .

/s/ Jerold Feldman

Jerold Feldman

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Emily B. Hays, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 1244 Speer Blvd., Suite 216, Denver, CO 80204-3516

Arthur Wolfson, Esq., Jackson Kelly PLLC, Three Gateway Center, 401 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500, Pittsburgh, PA 15222

/acp

[1] The caption in the Commission’s remand also concerned Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-436, LAKE 2009-58, LAKE 2009-59, and LAKE 2009-378. With the exception of Citation No. 6674618 in Docket No. LAKE 2009-57, for which the parties have not agreed upon payment of a $1,795.00 civil penalty, Judge Melick ordered that Big Ridge pay a total civil penalty of $272,961.00 in satisfaction of the all other citations/orders in these five dockets. Big Ridge has timely paid the $272,961.00 civil penalty.

[2]
Payment should be sent to the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Payment Office, P.O. Box 790390, St. Louis, MO 63179-0390. Please include the Docket No. and A.C. No. noted in the above caption on the check.

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