Ezel / Agency Decisions / SE 90-2-M

S.L. Peters Construction, Co. (ALJ decision, May 9, 1990)

S.L. Peters Construction, Co. (FMSHRC SE 90-2-M): Proposed settlement denied

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
SE 90-2-M
Decided
May 9, 1990
Presiding judge
Gary Melick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-16
Cited standards
30 C.F.R. § 56.14104
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

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.
Interim ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order denied a proposed settlement and required the Secretary to show cause why the civil penalty proceeding should not be dismissed. It did not decide the underlying violation or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

S.L. Peters Construction faced a proposed settlement concerning an alleged violation involving welding on an inflated tire and rim assembly. Judge Gary Melick found that the settlement motion and supporting documents did not establish that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.14104 occurred. The Secretary's accident investigation report also stated that no applicable metal and nonmetal mining regulations or standards had been violated. The judge denied the settlement motion and ordered the Secretary to show cause why the proceeding should not be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.14104
  • Outcome: The proposed settlement was denied, and the Secretary was ordered to show cause by May 25, 1990, why the proceeding should not be dismissed.
  • Key point: A settlement proposal must be supported by evidence establishing the alleged violation and showing that approval is appropriate.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. S.L. PETERS CONSTRUCTION
DDATE:
19900509
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1154
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.) Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. SE 90-2-M
A.C. No. 38-00052-05502 S3N v.
Langley Plant & Mine
S.L. PETERS CONSTRUCTION, CO.,
RESPONDENT

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Neither the Motion to Approve Settlement filed May 7, 1990, nor the attached documentation support a finding that a violation of the cited standard (30 C.F.R. 56.14104) in fact did occur. In addition the Secretary's Accident Investigation Report concludes that "[t]here were no violations of 30 C.F.R., Regulations and standards applicable to metal and nonmetal mining and milling operations in reference to welding on inflated tire/run assemblies."

Wherefore the Motion to Approve Settlement is denied. The Secretary is hereby ordered to show cause on or before May 25, 1990, why this Civil Penalty Proceeding should not be dismissed. See Co-op Mining Co., 2 FMSHRC 3475 (1980).

Gary Melick
Administrative Law Judge
(703) 756-6261

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, 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