Ezel / Agency Decisions / west-86-240-alj-2
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEST 86-240 Decided April 22, 1987 Settled Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr.

Utah Power & Light Company (Emery Mining)

Utah Power & Light Company (Emery Mining) (FMSHRC WEST 86-240): Partial settlement vacates two orders and resolves a third

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 settlement order, not Commission precedent
This decision approved a settlement and 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 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

Utah Power & Light Company's Emery Mining division reached a partial settlement covering four enforcement papers in Docket WEST 86-240 as part of a broader 16-docket resolution. The Secretary vacated two withdrawal orders, and the company agreed to pay the original $400 assessment for a third order. A separate citation remained under review in another Commission proceeding. Judge Michael A. Lasher, Jr. approved the partial settlement and asked counsel to report back after the Commission decided the remaining citation matter.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify individual standards.
  • Outcome: Two withdrawal orders were vacated, and the $400 assessment for a third order was accepted; one citation remained pending in separate Commission review.
  • Key point: A partial settlement can resolve some enforcement papers in a docket while leaving a related citation for separate adjudication.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. UTAH POWER
DDATE:
19870422
TTEXT:

Page 2

~824

          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 86-240
PETITIONER A.C. No. 42-00121-03610

     v.                            Deer Creek Mine

UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
(EMERY MINING),
RESPONDENT

               DECISION APPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Lasher

 The parties, as part of an overall settlement involving 16

dockets, have reached a partial settlement of the four
enforcement papers (three withdrawal orders and one Citation)
involved herein. As part of the motion for settlement approval
dated April 1, 1987, the Secretary has vacated Orders Nos.
2835140 and 2834563, and the Respondent has agreed to the full
amount of MSHA's initial assessment of $400.00 for Order No.
2834579. The remaining enforcement paper, Citation No. 2834575,
is in the process of litigation and is being reviewed in a
separate contest matter before the Commission, Docket No. WEST
86Ä126-R.

 I have approved the above settlement in this docket as part

of the 16Ädocket resolution urged by the parties which is being
simultaneously approved by me. Such approval is here affirmed.

 Counsel for both parties are requested to advise me, with

appropriate recommendations as to disposition, of remaining
Citation No. 2834575, as soon as possible following the
Commission's determination in Docket No. WEST 86Ä126-M.

                            Michael A. Lasher, Jr.
                            Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1987, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.