FMC Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) (ALJ decision, April 27, 1984)

FMC Corporation v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) (FMSHRC WEST 81-264-RM): $8,050 settlement approved

Decision type

ALJ decision

Dockets

WEST 81-264-RM, WEST 81-265-RM, WEST 82-15-RM, WEST 82-60-RM, WEST 82-61-RM, WEST 82-62-RM, WEST 82-121-RM, WEST 82-122-RM, WEST 82-123-RM, WEST 82-11-M, WEST 82-64-M, WEST 82-134-M, WEST 82-152-M, WEST 83-10-M(A)

Decided

April 27, 1984

Presiding judge

Joseph B. Kennedy

Outcome

Settled

Precedential status

Final order, not precedent

Checked against source

2026-10-20

Cited standards

30 U.S.C. § 814(a) 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)

Official source

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

PDF

View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1984 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.

Final ALJ decision under the Mine Act's 40-day rule

This administrative law judge decision became a final decision of the Commission because no Commissioner directed review within 40 days, under 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It is binding on 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

FMC Corporation and MSHA resolved consolidated citation contests and civil penalty cases concerning FMC Mine. After a settlement conference, MSHA agreed to modify nine section 104(d) citations or orders to section 104(a) citations, while FMC agreed to higher penalties on eight of eleven charges. FMC then justified a smaller increase for three remaining charges, and MSHA supported the resulting agreement. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy approved the settlement, allocated $8,050 across the eleven violations, and ordered FMC to pay by May 11, 1984. Dismissal of the consolidated cases was subject to payment.

Decision snapshot

Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 814(a) and § 814(d), the citation and order classifications changed in the settlement.
Outcome: Settlement approved; nine section 104(d) matters modified to section 104(a) citations; $8,050 total penalty payable by May 11, 1984.
Key point: The order approved modified citation classifications and a higher aggregate penalty to resolve the consolidated cases.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
FMC V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19840427
TTEXT:
~1068

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

FMC CORPORATION,
CONTEST OF ORDER/CITATION
CONTESTANT
v. Docket No. WEST 81-264-RM
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Order No. 577585; 4/7/81
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 81-265-RM
RESPONDENT
Order No. 577586; 4/7/81

Docket No. WEST 82-15-RM
Order No. 578606; 9/9/81

Docket No. WEST 82-60-RM
Citation No. 578884; 11/16/81

Docket No. WEST 82-61-RM
Order No. 578885; 11/16/81

Docket No. WEST 82-62-RM
Citation No. 578907; 11/18/81

Docket No. WEST 82-121-RM
Order No. 578961; 2/10/82

Docket No. WEST 82-122-RM
Order No. 578880; 2/10/82

Docket No. WEST 82-123-RM
Order No. 578879; 2/10/82

FMC Mine
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 82-11-M
PETITIONER A.C. No. 48-00152-05050 V v.
Docket No. WEST 82-64-M
FMC CORPORATION,
A.C. No. 48-00152-05054 V
RESPONDENT
Docket No. WEST 82-134-M
A.C. No. 48-00152-05056

Docket No. WEST 82-152-M
A.C. No. 48-00152-05058 V

Docket No. WEST 83-10-M(A)
A.C. No. 48-00152-05504

FMC Mine
~1069
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Kennedy

These matters came on for a prehearing/settlement conference on April 10, 1984. As a result of the scrutiny and analysis afforded at this hearing, the Secretary agreed to modification of the section 104(d) violations to section 104(a) citations and the operator agreed to a substantial increase in the penalties proposed for eight of the eleven charges. As to the remaining three, the operator requested time to submit its justification for a lesser increase in the amount of the penalty than that proposed by the trial judge.

The matter is now before me on the operator's motion to approve settlement which includes its justification for increasing the penalties on the three excepted violations from $500 to $1,000 instead of $2,000. The Secretary recommends acceptance of the operator's circumstances in mitigation of the trial judge's initial proposal.

Based on a further independent evaluation of these matters, I find the settlement now proposed by both parties is in accord with the purposes and policy of the Act. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. The following section 104(d) Citations/Orders be, and hereby are, modified to section 104(a) citations:

Number

577585
577586
578606
578911
578885
578967
578961
578880
578979
~1070
2. The penalties agreed upon be allocated among the violations charged as follows:

Number
Amount

577585
$1,000
577586
1,000
578606
1,000
578911
1,000
578884
300
578885
300
578967
300
578907
150
578961
1,000
578880
1,000
578879
1,000

Total $8,050

3. The operator pay the total amount of the settlement agreed upon, $8,050, on or before Friday, May 11, 1984 and that subject to payment the captioned matters 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