Peabody Coal Company (ALJ decision, December 4, 1991)
Peabody Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 91-134): Settlement approved with penalty reduced to $600
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.
Plain-English summary
Peabody Coal Company was cited in a civil penalty proceeding involving Mine No. 10. The Secretary of Labor asked the judge to approve a settlement under Sections 105(d) and 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. Judge Gary Melick found the proposed settlement appropriate after considering the parties' representations and supporting documentation. The penalty was reduced from $1,200 to $600, payable within 30 days.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authorities: 30 U.S.C. § 815(d) and 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
- Outcome: The settlement was approved, reducing the penalty to $600.
- Key point: A proposed penalty settlement may be approved when it satisfies the statutory criteria and is supported by the parties' representations and documentation.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. PEABODY COAL
DDATE:
19911204
TTEXT:
Page 2
~1883
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. LAKE 91-134
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 11-00585-03787
v. Mine No. 10
PEABODY COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Appearances: Susan J. Bissegger, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Chicago, Illinois, for the Petitioner;
David R. Joest, Esq., Midwest Division Counsel, Peabody Coal Company, Henderson, Kentucky, for the Respondent.
Before: Judge Melick
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of civil penalty under Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). Petitioner has filed several motions to approve a settlement agreement the latest at hearings on November 26, 1991. A reduction in penalty from $1,200 to $600 is proposed. I have considered the representations and documentation submitted in this case, and I conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act.
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Respondent pay a penalty of $600 within 30 days of this order.
Gary Melick
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