Ezel / Agency Decisions / lake-92-15-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket LAKE 92-15 Decided January 17, 1992 Settled Judge Avram Weisberger Transcribed from scan

Zeigler Coal Company

Zeigler Coal Company (FMSHRC LAKE 92-15): Settlement approved and penalty reduced to $100

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1992 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 1992
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 ALJ decision approving a settlement, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. 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

Zeigler Coal Company faced a civil penalty proceeding involving its Murdock Mine. After a hearing on another matter, the Secretary of Labor moved to approve a settlement and dismiss the case, reducing the proposed penalty from $500 to $100. Judge Avram Weisberger found the settlement appropriate under the Mine Act's penalty criteria and ordered Zeigler to pay $100 within 30 days. The order did not decide any contested violation on the merits.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(d) and 820(i)
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, the penalty was reduced from $500 to $100, and payment was ordered within 30 days.
  • Key point: The ALJ approved the negotiated penalty reduction after considering the parties' representations and supporting documentation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. ZEIGLER
DDATE:
19920117
TTEXT:

Page 2

~160
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline, 10th Floor
5203 Church, Virginia 22041
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. LAKE 92-15
PETITIONER A. C. No. 11-00586-03659
v.
Murdock Mine
ZEIGLER COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                        DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

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

Before: Judge Weisberger

 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). On December 16, 1991, subsequent to
a hearing on the merits concerning another matter, Petitioner
made a motion, on the record, to approve a settlement agreement
and to dismiss the case. A reduction in penalty from $500 to $100
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 $100 within 30
days of this order.

                                      Avram Weisberger
                                      Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1992, 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.