Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEST 85-148-M

Texasgulf, Inc. (ALJ decision, April 17, 1987)

Texasgulf, Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 85-148-M, WEST 86-83-M): Errata corrected terminology in prior decision

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
WEST 85-148-M, WEST 86-83-M
Decided
April 17, 1987
Presiding judge
Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-22
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 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 1987
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 order correcting a prior decision, not Commission precedent
This errata order corrected the phrase “serious and substantial” to “significant and substantial” in the judge’s earlier decision. It 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 judge issued this errata order to correct wording in an earlier decision involving Texasgulf, Inc. The order changed the phrase “serious and substantial” to “significant and substantial.” It identifies the correction as the author’s error and does not otherwise state a change to the earlier decision.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the errata order.
  • Outcome: The earlier decision was corrected to use the phrase “significant and substantial.”
  • Key point: This order makes a terminology correction to the judge’s prior decision.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. TEXASGULF INC.
DDATE:
19870417
TTEXT:

Page 2

~767

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. WEST 85-148-M
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 48-00639-05515

v. Docket No. WEST 86-83-M
A.C. No. 48-00639-05517
TEXASGULF, INC.,
RESPONDENT Wyoming Soda Ash

ERRATA

At page 5 of my Decision in this matter issued approximately April 10, 1987, in the first sentence following the heading "Discussion" the quoted phrase "serious and substantial" is amended to read "significant and substantial" to correct the author's error.

Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
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