Secretary of Labor v. K C & D Mining Co., Inc. (ALJ decision, May 10, 1985)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary of Labor sought a civil penalty against K C & D Mining Co. for its Coalburg No. 1 Mine. Judge Gary Melick had denied an earlier settlement motion because the financial data appeared incomplete. On reconsideration, the Secretary submitted documentation showing that the relevant financial data had been fully disclosed. The judge found a proposed reduction from $534 to $150 appropriate under the Mine Act's penalty criteria. He approved the settlement, ordered payment within 30 days, and canceled the scheduled hearing. The decision does not describe the underlying violation.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: Mine Act §§ 105(d) and 110(i), 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(d) and 820(i).
• Outcome: Settlement approved; penalty reduced from $534 to $150.
• Key point: The judge approved the revised settlement after reviewing the additional financial documentation.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. K C & D MINING
DDATE:
19850510
TTEXT:
~672
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. WEVA 84-246
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 46-06222-03530
v.
Coalburg No. 1 Mine
K C & D MINING CO., INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Melick

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of civil penalty under Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). Petitioner's first motion to approve a settlement agreement was denied by the undersigned on the grounds that "full disclosure" of all financial data had apparantly not been made. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration and has submitted documentation indicating that full disclosure of relevant financial data has in fact been made. A reduction in penalty from $534 to $150 has been proposed. I have reconsidered the representations and documentation submitted in this case, and I now conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth in Section 110(i) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Respondent pay a penalty of $150 within 30 days of this order. The hearings scheduled in this case for May 21, 1985, are accordingly cancelled.

Gary Melick
Administrative Law Judge