Asamera Mineral (US), Inc. (ALJ decision, August 10, 1993)

Asamera Mineral (US), Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 92-802-M): Settlement approved and $50 penalty ordered

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEST 92-802-M
Decided
August 10, 1993
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-14

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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 1993
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

Asamera Mineral (US), Inc. faced one civil penalty proceeding involving the alteration of an accident scene at the Cannon Mine. After the judge initially disapproved the parties’ settlement and requested more information, the operator explained that MSHA had approved moving the equipment and that the accident site had changed only minimally. Judge Paul Merlin found that the additional information supported ordinary negligence and reduced gravity. He approved the settlement and ordered the operator to pay $50 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify a specific mine-safety standard.
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved and a $50 penalty was assessed.
  • Key point: Additional evidence about MSHA’s approval to move equipment and the limited change to the accident scene supported a reduced penalty settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket No. WEST 92-802-M Petitioner : A. C. No. 45-02961-05553 :
v. : Cannon Mine
:
ASAMERA MINERAL (US), INC., :
Respondent :

ORDER ACCEPTING RESPONSE
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO PAY

Before: Judge Merlin

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of a civil penalty under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. On April 26, 1993, the parties filed a motion to approve settlement of the one violation involved in this case. The parties sought approval of a reduction in the penalty amount from the original assessment of $100 to $50. On June 11, 1993, an Order Disapproving Settlement and Order to Submit Information was issued directing the parties to file additional information to support their motion. On July 12, 1993, the Solicitor submitted a letter to the undersigned accompanied by a detailed and comprehensive letter dated June 24, 1993 from the operator. Both letters further explain the circumstances of the cited violation.

The Solicitor points out that, as noted in the Disapproval of Settlement, the inspector's initial finding of high negligence was changed to ordinary negligence by the narrative findings of the Special Assessment. Information contained in the operator's letter justifies a finding of ordinary negligence. Thus, with respect to the alteration of the accident scene the operator advises that it contacted MSHA prior to altering the site and was given approval to move the piece of equipment in question from the accident scene. The operator's manager made a contemporaneous notation of this approval in his diary, a copy of which notation was attached to the letter to the Solicitor. In addition, the operator's assertion that there was only minimal change to the accident site, is uncontradicted. The Solicitor represents that the operator's contemplated testimony will undermine the credibility of the investigative report and that under the circumstances the recommended reduction in penalty amount is appropriate. In view of the explanations now in the record, I agree that negligence and gravity are less than originally

thought. Therefore, I accept the parties' representations and I conclude that the settlement is appropriate under the six criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act.

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the information filed July 12 is ACCEPTED as a response to the June 11 order.

It is further ORDERED that the recommended settlement be APPROVED and the operator PAY $50 within 30 days of the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Douglas White, Esq., Counsel, Trial Litigation, Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified Mail)

Robert A. Friel, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 945, Seattle, WA 98101-3212 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Melvin J. Wattula, Manager, Asamera Minerals (US), Inc., P.O. Box 398, Wenatchee, WA 98801 (Certified Mail)

/gl

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