FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket SE 89-96-M Decided February 9, 1990 Settled Judge James A. Broderick

Mayland Stone Company, Inc.

Mayland Stone Company, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 89-96-M): $600 settlement approved

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1990 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 1990
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 order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. 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

Mayland Stone operated a crushed stone facility with 10 employees on one shift. The case involved a berm-standard violation under 30 C.F.R. § 56.9300, and the Secretary and Mayland agreed that the company would pay the originally assessed $600 penalty. Judge James A. Broderick noted that the violation was serious and caused by the company’s negligence. He also considered the company’s size, 80,550 mine work hours during 1988, and its seven paid violations during the prior two years, including one berm violation. Applying the statutory penalty criteria, he approved the settlement and ordered payment within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.9300
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, and Mayland Stone was ordered to pay $600 within 30 days.
  • Key point: A settlement amount may be approved after considering the seriousness and negligence of the violation, the operator’s size, work hours, and violation history.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. MAYLAND STONE
DDATE:
19900209
TTEXT:


Page 2

~218
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. SE 89-96-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 31-01568-05507

      v.                               Daybook Mine

MAYLAND STONE COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT

             DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: Ken Welsch, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia,
for the Secretary of Labor; Lloyd Hise, Jr., Esq.,
Spruce Pine, North Carolina, for Mayland Stone
Company, Inc.

Before: Judge Broderick

 The above case was called for hearing on February 6, 1990,

in Asheville, North Carolina. The Secretary made a motion on the
record that a settlement agreement between the parties, whereby
Respondent would pay the amount originally assessed, $600, be
approved by the Commission.

 Respondent operates a crushed stone facility. It employs 10

persons on one shift. During 1988, 80,550 man hours were worked
at the mine. During the two years prior to the violation involved
in this proceeding, Respondent had 7 paid violations of mandatory
standards, including one violation of the berm standard, 30
C.F.R. 56.9300, which is involved herein. The violation in this
case was serious and was caused by Respondent's negligence. I
have considered the motion in the light of the criteria in
section 110(i) of the Act and conclude that it should be
approved.

 Accordingly, the settlement is APPROVED and Respondent is

ORDERED TO PAY the sum of $600 within 30 days of the date of this
order.

                               James A. Broderick
                               Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1990, 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.