Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Harman Mining Company (ALJ decision, November 3, 1981)
Harman Mining Company (FMSHRC VA 81-83): Canopy allegations withdrawn, $1,500 settlement approved
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1981 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.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary and Harman Mining Company proposed a settlement at the Harman 5-B Mine. They asked to vacate and withdraw four canopy allegations while paying the full assessed penalties for a rock dust deficiency and an excessive accumulation of combustibles. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy found the proposed disposition consistent with the Mine Act and approved it. He ordered Harman to pay $1,500 by November 20, 1981, with dismissal to follow payment. The short released order does not identify any cited standard by number.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: The release names the canopy, rock dust, and combustible accumulation issues but gives no regulation numbers.
- Outcome: Four canopy allegations vacated and withdrawn; $1,500 settlement approved on the remaining matters.
- Key point: The order approved withdrawal of the canopy allegations alongside full payment of the other assessed penalties.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. HARMAN MINING
DDATE:
19811103
TTEXT:
~2553
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. VA 81-83
PETITIONER
A.O. No. 44-03614-03026V
v.
Harman 5-B Mine
HARMAN MINING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
DECISION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the motion to approve settlement, the parties request approval of vacation and withdrawal of the four canopy violations and payment in full of the penalties assessed for the alleged deficiency in rock dust and excessive accumulation of combustibles.
Based on an independent evaluation and de novo review of the circumstances and justifications offered, I find the disposition proposed is in accord with the purposes and policy of the Act.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to approve vacation and settlement be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the penalty agreed upon, $1500, on or before Friday, November 20, 1981 and that subject to payment the captioned matter be DISMISSED.
Joseph B. Kennedy
Administrative Law Judge
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