Ezel / Agency Decisions / VA 91-565

Lambert Coal Company (ALJ decision, November 20, 1991)

Lambert Coal Company (FMSHRC VA 91-565 and related dockets): Settlement approved with $8,250 penalty

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
VA 91-565, VA 91-566, VA 91-567, VA 91-568, VA 91-569
Decided
November 20, 1991
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 1991 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 1991
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, 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.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary alleged that Lambert Coal Company altered the weight of respirable dust samples submitted as part of its sampling requirements at five mines. The five dockets covered ten alleged violations of 30 C.F.R. § 70.209(b), and the operator denied deliberately tampering with or altering the dust filter media. The parties proposed reducing each $1,100 penalty to $825 because they disputed the degree and existence of negligence. Judge James A. Broderick approved the settlement under the criteria in Section 110(i) of the Act, for a total penalty of $8,250.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. § 70.209(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved, reducing the total penalty from $11,000 to $8,250.
  • Key point: The judge approved the negotiated penalty after considering the statutory penalty criteria and the parties' dispute about negligence.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. LAMBERT COAL
DDATE:
19911120
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1843
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. VA 91-565
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 44-01656-03530D

v. Docket No. VA 91-566
A.C. No. 44-05654-03539D
LAMBERT COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
Docket No. VA 91-567
A.C. No. 44-05210-03543D

Docket No. VA 91-568
A.C. No. 44-05831-03552D

Docket No. VA 91-569
A.C. No. 44-06582-03507D

Mines 14, 43, 44, 47, 48

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Broderick

On November 1, 1991, the Secretary and Respondent filed a motion to approve a settlement in the above cases. The above five dockets contain 10 alleged violations of 30 C.F.R. 70.209(b) in each of which the Secretary alleged that Respondent altered the weight of a respirable dust sample submitted by Respondent as part of its sampling requirements. The Secretary contends that the violations resulted from a deliberate act; the operator denies that it deliberately tampered with or altered any of its dust filter media.

Each violation was originally assessed at $1100, for a total penalty of $11,000. The settlement proposes that each penalty be reduced to $825, for a total penalty of $8250, the reduction based on a dispute between the parties as to the degree and existence of 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.

Page 3

~1844
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The settlement agreement is APPROVED.

2. Respondent shall within 30 days of the date of this order pay the sum of $8250 as a civil penalty for the alleged violation.

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