Ezel / Agency Decisions / penn-86-275-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket PENN 86-275 Decided April 6, 1987 Settled Judge Avram Weisberger

Reading Anthracite Company

Reading Anthracite Company (FMSHRC PENN 86-275): $3,600 settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 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 1987
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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Reading Anthracite Company faced a civil penalty proceeding concerning the New St. Nicholas Breaker. The Secretary filed a motion to approve a settlement, and the company agreed to pay the proposed penalty of $3,600 in full. Judge Avram Weisberger reviewed the parties' representations and documentation under the Mine Act's penalty criteria. He found the settlement appropriate, approved it, and ordered payment within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: The decision does not identify a specific mine-safety standard.
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved and Reading Anthracite was ordered to pay $3,600.
  • Key point: The ALJ approved the settlement after reviewing the submitted representations and documentation under the statutory penalty criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. READING ANTHRACITE
DDATE:
19870406
TTEXT:

Page 2

~707

          Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
                Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. PENN 86-275
PETITIONER A.C. No. 36-01966-03519

     v.                            New St. Nicholas Breaker

READING ANTHRACITE COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                   DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

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). Petitioner has filed a motion to
approve a settlement agreement and to dismiss the case.
Respondent has agreed to pay the proposed penalty of $3,600 in
full. 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 $3,600 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 1987, 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.