Ambrosia Coal & Construction Company
Ambrosia Coal & Construction Company (FMSHRC PENN 93-233): Penalties reassessed on remand
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This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case.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.
Plain-English summary
The Commission remanded two Ambrosia Coal cases to Judge William Fauver for reassessment of civil penalties. The judge ordered the Secretary to propose revised penalties and explain them consistently with the Commission's decision and the Commission's penalty precedent. Ambrosia and the other respondent were given time to reply and recommend counter-proposals. The order addressed procedure only and did not itself set a penalty.
Decision snapshot
- Governing authority: 30 U.S.C. § 801
- Outcome: The cases were remanded for the Secretary to propose reassessed penalties, followed by responses from the respondents.
- Key point: A remand order requiring penalty reassessment sets the process and briefing schedule but does not itself determine the revised penalty.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041
September 20, 1996
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. PENN 93-233
Petitioner : A.C. No. 36-04109-03520
v. :
: Ambrosia Tipple
AMBROSIA COAL & :
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, :
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. PENN 94-15
Petitioner : A.C. No. 36-04109-03522 A
v. :
: Ambrosia Tipple
AMBROSIA COAL & :
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY :
ORDER ON REMAND
Before: Judge Fauver
On September 12, 1996 the Commission remanded these cases to
the judge for reassessment of civil penalties.
The Secretary shall have 15 days from the date of this Order
to propose the amounts of reassessed civil penalties against
Ambrosia and Steen with the reasons therefor consistent with the
Commission’s decision in this case and in Sellersburg Stone Co.,
5 FMSHRC 287, 293-3 (1983). Each Respondent shall have 10 days
to reply to the Secretary’s proposed penalties and to recommend
counter-proposals with the reasons therefor consistent with the
above decisions.
William Fauver
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Jerold S. Feingold, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 400, Arlington,
VA 22203 (Certified Mail)
William P. Getty, Esq., Hugh F. McGough, Esq., Meyer, UnKovic &
Scott, 1300 Oliver Bldg., Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Certified Mail)
Frank G. Verterano & Manolis, 2622 Wilmington Road, New Castle,
PA 16105 (Certified Mail)
nt
2
Find out what applies today
This decision wasn't the final word: the Commission reviewed the case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your specific situation under current law, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.