Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Fancy Mining Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, November 27, 1981)

Plain-English summary

MSHA sought a civil penalty from Fancy Mining Company in a case concerning the J & J No. 2 Mine. Judge James A. Laurenson initially denied a joint settlement motion, then held a hearing and reconsidered the parties' renewed request. He found the proposed settlement consistent with the Mine Act's purposes and approved a reduction from $10,000 to $2,000. The order required Fancy Mining to pay $2,000 and dismissed the petition subject to that payment. The decision does not identify the underlying citation or safety standard.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: None identified in this settlement order.
• Outcome: Settlement approved; the penalty was reduced from $10,000 to $2,000, with dismissal subject to payment.
• Key point: The judge approved the reduced penalty after a hearing and review of the renewed settlement request.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL V. FANCY MINIG
DDATE:
19811127
TTEXT:
~2709

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Civil Penalty Proceeding
PETITIONER
v. Docket No. WEVA 80-730
A.C. No. 46-02856-03004 R
FANCY MINING COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT
J & J No. 2 Mine

DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

This proceeding was commenced by the Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter "MSHA") on November 10, 1980, by the filing of a petition for assessment of civil penalty. On April 20, 1981, the parties filed a joint motion for an order approving settlement of this case, which I subsequently denied in an order dated July 6, 1981. A hearing was held on the matter on September 15, 1981, in Morgantown, West Virginia. Barry Lane Ryan testified on behalf of MSHA and John A. Laurita testified on behalf of both MSHA and Fancy Mining. At the close of the hearing, the parties indicated their desire to have their motion to approve settlement reconsidered. I stated at that time that I would rule upon the renewed motion after posthearing briefs were submitted and the record was closed.

Having duly considered the testimony and other evidence, I conclude that the recommended settlement is consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act. The recommended settlement, reducing the penalty from $10,000.00 to $2,000.00, is therefore, approved.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss and approve settlement is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay $2,000 and that subject to such payment the petition be DISMISSED.

James A. Laurenson
Judge