Buck Creek Coal Company, Incorporated (ALJ decision, March 15, 1995)

Buck Creek Coal Company, Incorporated (FMSHRC LAKE 93-241): Remand penalty reassessed at $5,500

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
LAKE 93-241
Decided
March 15, 1995
Presiding judge
Outcome
Modified
Precedential status
Checked against source
2026-08-13

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This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case.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 1995
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

The Commission reversed Judge T. Todd Hodgdon's earlier conclusion that Buck Creek's violation of the preshift examination standard was not significant and substantial. On remand, the judge treated the violation as significant and substantial, found that it involved a high degree of gravity, and reassessed the civil penalty at $5,500. Buck Creek was ordered to pay within 30 days, after which the proceeding would be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 75.360(a)
  • Outcome: On remand, the violation was treated as significant and substantial and the civil penalty was reassessed at $5,500.
  • Key point: A Commission reversal of an S&S determination can require the ALJ to reassess the penalty based on the increased gravity.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF A D M INISTRA TIV E LA W JUDGES 2 SK YLINE, 10 th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIK E
FA LLS CHURCH, V IRGINIA 22041

March 15, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. LAKE 93-241
Petitioner : A. C. No. 12-02033-03596
v. :
: Buck Creek Mine
BUCK CREEK COAL COMPANY,
:
INCORPORATED,
:
Respondent
:

DECISION ON REMAND

Before: Judge Hodgdon

On January 20, 1995, the Commission issued a decision in this case reversing my conclusion that Buck Creek's violation of Section 75.360(a), 30 C.F.R. ' 75.360(a), was not "significant and substantial." Buck Creek Coal Company, Inc., 17 FMSHRC 8 (January 1995). The case was remanded to me "for reassessment of a civil penalty consistent with [the Commission's] opinion." Id. at 17.

In view of the Commission's determination that this violation was "significant and substantial," I find that it involved a high degree of gravity. Taking into consideration the other criteria set out in Section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. ' 820(i), which are discussed in my prior decision, Buck Creek Coal Company, Inc., 16 FMSHRC 133, 140 (1994), along with the increase in gravity, I conclude that a penalty of $5,500.00 is appropriate for this violation.


Page 2

ORDER

Accordingly, Buck Creek Coal Company, Inc. is ORDERED to pay a civil penalty of $5,500.00 for its violation of the mandatory safety standards within 30 days of the date of this decision. On receipt of payment, this proceeding is DISMISSED.

T. Todd Hodgdon
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Lisa A. Gray, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 230 S. Dearborn Street, 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604 (Certified Mail)

Patrick A. Shoulders, Esq., Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel & Shoulders, P.O. Box 916, Evansville, IN 47706 (Certified Mail)

/lbk

2

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