FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket PENN 93-233, PENN 94-15 Decided September 20, 1996 Procedural Judge William Fauver

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This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case.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

Currency note: this decision dates from 1996
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 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.