Saginaw Mining Company (ALJ decision, December 21, 1993)

Saginaw Mining Company (FMSHRC Lake 93-165): Settlement disapproved pending more information

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
Lake 93-165
Decided
December 21, 1993
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-14

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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 1993
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.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order denied approval of a proposed civil-penalty settlement and required the parties to provide supporting information. It did not dispose of the case or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It 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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Saginaw Mining Company faced three citations after an October 23, 1991 roof-fall accident at the Saginaw Mine that caused fatal injuries to a mine foreman and serious injuries to a construction foreman. The Secretary proposed reducing the total civil penalties from $21,000 to $15,000, but the settlement motion did not explain the proposed reduction or provide supporting mitigating facts. Judge Jerold Feldman denied approval of the settlement and ordered the parties to submit citation-specific information within 30 days. The judge stated that the case would be scheduled for hearing if the information was not timely provided.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(d), 30 U.S.C. § 820(k), and 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: The settlement motion was denied, and the parties were ordered to provide additional information before any reduction could be approved.
  • Key point: A proposed Mine Act settlement must include enough information for the judge to evaluate penalty reductions under the statutory criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. SAGINAW MINING
DDATE:
19931221
TTEXT:


Page 2

~2602

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 PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket No. Lake 93-165 Petitioner : A.C. No. 33-00941-03757
v. :
: Saginaw Mine
SAGINAW MINING COMPANY, :
Respondent :

ORDER DISAPPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

Before: Judge Feldman

This case is before me based upon a petition for assessment of civil penalties filed by the Secretary pursuant to Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The Secretary has filed a motion for the approval of settlement concerning the three citations in issue. These citations concern a fatal roof-fall accident that occurred at the Saginaw Mine on October 23, 1991. A mine foreman suffered fatal injuries and a construction foreman suffered serious injuries as a result of this accident. The Secretary seeks my approval of reductions in the total proposed civil penalties from $21,000 to $15,000.

The motion before me contains no specific rationale or evidence of mitigating circumstances that would support the proposed reduction in civil penalties. Section 110(k), 30 U.S.C. 820(k), requires Commission approval of any settlement agreement in this matter. The Commission must consider whether the terms of the proposed settlement are consistent with the six statutory criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(i). See Sellersburg Stone Company v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 736 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1984).

Based upon the absence of supporting information in the Secretary's motion, particularly in this case which involves a fatality, I am unable to conclude that the suggested penalty reduction is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for approval for settlement IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide additional information specific to each citation supporting their motion for reduction


Page 3

~2603
in civil penalty. The information provided should specifically address the mitigating circumstances, if any, that warrant a reduction in penalties. This information should be provided within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to timely provide the requested information will result in the scheduling of this case for hearing.
Jerold Feldman
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Maureen M. Cafferkey, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, 881 Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199 (Certified Mail)

George Basara, Esq., Polito & Smock, Four Gateway Center, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Certified Mail)

/ll

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