Ezel / Agency Decisions / lake-91-44-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket LAKE 91-44, LAKE 91-45, LAKE 91-69, LAKE 91-113, LAKE 91-121, LAKE 91-442, LAKE 91-486, LAKE 91-27, LAKE 91-131, LAKE 91-24, LAKE 91-28, LAKE 91-46, LAKE 91-47, LAKE 91-68, LAKE 91-71, LAKE 91-78, LAKE 91-79, LAKE 91-100, LAKE 91-108, LAKE 91-110, LAKE 91-114, LAKE 91-115, LAKE 91-116, LAKE 91-122, LAKE 91-128, LAKE 91-129, LAKE 91-417, LAKE 91-427 Decided July 25, 1991 Settled Judge Avram Weisberger Transcribed from scan

Old Ben Coal Company

Old Ben Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 91-44): Twenty-eight proceedings settled for $6,079

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

Old Ben Coal was the respondent in 28 consolidated civil penalty proceedings involving Mines 24, 25, and 26. The Secretary initially sought penalties totaling $11,656, and the parties proposed settlements totaling $6,079. Judge Avram Weisberger found the settlements and proposed penalties appropriate after considering the facts and the Mine Act's penalty criteria. He severed the listed dockets from the earlier consolidation and ordered Old Ben Coal to pay $6,079 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: The decision does not identify individual standards. It cites the civil-penalty criteria in 30 U.S.C. § 820(i).
  • Outcome: Twenty-eight settlements were approved, reducing the proposed total from $11,656 to $6,079, and payment was ordered within 30 days.
  • Key point: The judge approved the parties' settlement terms after reviewing the underlying citation and order facts and the statutory penalty factors.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. OLD BEN COAL
DDATE:
19910725
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1178

           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. LAKE 91-44
Petitioner A.C. No. 11-00590-03766
v.
Docket No. LAKE 91-45
OLD BEN COAL COMPANY, A.C. No. 11-00590-03767
Respondent
Docket No. LAKE 91-69
A.C. No. 11-00589-03770

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-113
                                    A.C. No. 11-00589-03774

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-121
                                    A.C. No. 11-00589-03778

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-442
                                    A.C. No. 11-00589-03782

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-486
                                    A.C. No. 11-00589-03783

                                    No. 24 Mine

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-27
                                    A.C. No. 11-02392-03818

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-131
                                    A.C. No. 11-02392-03829

                                    No. 25 Mine

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-24
                                    A.C. No. 11-00590-03805

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-28
                                    A.C. No. 11-00590-03806

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-46
                                    A.C. No. 11-00590-03810

                                    Docket No. LAKE 91-47
                                    A.C. No. 11-00590-03812

Page 3

~1179
Docket No. LAKE 91-68
A.C. No. 11-00590-03813

    Docket No. LAKE 91-71
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03817

    Docket No. LAKE 91-78
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03818

    Docket No. LAKE 91-79
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03819

    Docket No. LAKE 91-100
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03820

    Docket No. LAKE 91-108
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03821

    Docket No. LAKE 91-110
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03823

    Docket No. LAKE 91-114
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03824

    Docket No. LAKE 91-115
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03825

    Docket No. LAKE 91-116
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03826

    Docket No. LAKE 91-122
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03827

    Docket No. LAKE 91-128
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03829

    Docket No. LAKE 91-129
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03830

    Docket No. LAKE 91-417
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03832

    Docket No. LAKE 91-427
    A.C. No. 11-00590-03833

    No. 26 Mine

Page 4

~1180
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: Rafael Alvarez, Esq., U. S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, Chicago, Illinois, for
the Secretary;
Gregory S. Keltner, Esq., Fairview Heights,
Illinois, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Weisberger

 These cases were consolidated and set for hearing on June

25, 1991, in St. Louis, Missouri. At that time, Petitioner made a
series of Motions to approve settlements that had been entered
into between the Parties in these cases. Petitioner, had
initially sought penalties totaling $11,656, and the Parties have
proposed in their settlements, that the total penalties should be
reduced to $6,079.

 At the hearing, the Parties made extensive and thorough

representations and proffered documentary evidence with regard to
the facts relating to each of the Citations and Orders at issue
in these cases, and the factors set forth in Section 110(i) of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). I have
considered these representatives as well as the factors set forth
in Section 110(i) of the Act, and I find that the settlements and
the proposed penalties are appropriate, and I approve the
settlements presented at the hearing.

 It is ORDERED that the above docket numbers be severed from

the docket numbers they were consolidated within an Order issued
June 25, 1991, (Docket No. LAKE 91-15 et al).

 It is further ORDERED that, within 30 days of this Decision,

Respondent shall pay penalties totaling $6,079.

                                      Avram Weisberger
                                      Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1991, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.