Ezel / Agency Decisions / VA 91-454

Betty B Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, February 19, 1992)

Betty B Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC VA 91-454 and related dockets): Dust citation settlement approved for $2,880

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
VA 91-454, VA 91-455, VA 91-410-R Through VA 91-411-R, VA 91-412-R
Decided
February 19, 1992
Presiding judge
James A. Broderick
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-15
Cited standards
30 C.F.R. § 70.209(b) 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1992 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 1992
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 ALJ decision approving a settlement, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but 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

Betty B Coal Company and the Secretary settled three alleged respirable-dust violations under 30 C.F.R. § 70.209(b). The violations had originally carried total proposed penalties of $3,600, and the parties disputed whether the conduct was deliberate and the degree of negligence. Judge James A. Broderick approved the settlement, reduced the total penalty to $2,880, and dismissed the contest proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 70.209(b).
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, the total penalty was reduced from $3,600 to $2,880, and the proceedings were dismissed.
  • Key point: The judge approved the negotiated penalty reduction after considering the statutory criteria in section 110(i) of the Mine Act.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
BETTY B COAL v. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19920219
TTEXT:

Page 2

~368
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 Skyline 10th Floor
5203 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

BETTY B COAL COMPANY, INC., CONTEST PROCEEDINGS CONTESTANT
v. Docket No. VA 91-410-R
Through VA 91-411-R
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Citation No. 9861401; 4/4/91
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Through No. 9861402; 4/4/91
RESPONDENT
Mine No. 12 44-06423

Docket No. VA 91-412-R
Citation No. 9861047; 4/4/91

Mine No. 11 44-04204

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. VA 91-454
PETITIONER
A. C. No. 44-04204-03538D
v.
Docket No. VA 91-455
BETTY B COAL COMPANY, INC., A. C. No. 44-06423-03525D RESPONDENT
No. 11 Mine
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Broderick

On December 4, 1991, the Secretary filed a motion to approve a settlement between the parties in the above cases. The cases include 3 alleged violations of 30 C.F.R. 70.209(b), each of which was originally assessed at $1200. The Secretary continues to assert that the violations resulted from a deliberate act, which is denied by the mine operator. The degree of negligence is disputed, and the parties agree to a reduction in the total penalties from $3600 to $2880.

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.

Page 3

~369
Accordingly, the settlement motion is APPROVED. The operator is ORDERED to pay within 30 days of the date of this order, the sum of $2880 for the violations charged in this proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the contest proceedings are DISMISSED.

James A. Broderick
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