Consolidation Coal Company (ALJ decision, May 20, 1987)
Consolidation Coal Company (FMSHRC WEVA 87-67 and related dockets): Part 50 settlement approved at $5,000
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.
Plain-English summary
Consolidation Coal faced 10 alleged violations of 30 C.F.R. Part 50 across six dockets. The parties disputed how Part 50 applied, but the operator agreed to comply with MSHA's interpretation and consented to findings of the alleged violations for settlement purposes without admitting liability. Judge James A. Broderick approved the settlement and ordered payment of $5,000, or $500 per alleged violation.
Decision snapshot
- Cited provisions: 30 C.F.R. Part 50; 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
- Outcome: The settlement was approved and $5,000 was ordered paid.
- Key point: A settlement may resolve disputed interpretations of a safety regulation without an admission of liability.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. CONSOLIDATION COAL
DDATE:
19870520
TTEXT:
Page 2
~953
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEVA 87-67
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 46-01452-03621
v. Arkwright Mine
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Docket No. WEVA 87-42(A)
RESPONDENT
A.C. No. 46-01453-03735
Docket No. WEVA 87-419
A.C. No. 46-01453-03711
Docket No. WEVA 87-68
A.C. No. 46-01453-03737
Humphrey No. 7 Mine
Docket No. WEVA 87-70
A.C. No. 46-01455-03650
Osage No. 3 Mine
Docket No. WEVA 86-384
A.C. No. 46-01454-03667
Pursglove No. 15 Mine
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Broderick
On May 15, 1987, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of a settlement reached between them. The above dockets contain a total of 10 alleged violations of 30 C.F.R. Part 50 and were originally assessed in the total amount of $400. The motion proposes a settlement for the payment of a total of $5000, or $500 for each alleged violation.
On the alleged violations, five were originally assessed at $20 each, four were assessed at $50 each, and one was
Page 3
~954
assessed at $100. The motion states that the parties disagreed as to the proper interpretation of the requirements of Part 50, but that Consol agrees to comply with the broad intent of Part 50 and MSHA's interpretation thereof in the informational bulletin issued in December 1986. The settlement does not constitute an admission by Consol to any violation of the Act or the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, but for the purposes of the settlement, Consol consents to a finding of the existence of the alleged violations. Consol is a large operator; the violations were serious and the result of negligence. They were abated in good faith. Consol has an average history of violations for an operator of its size.
I have considered the motion in the light of the criteria in section 110(i) of the Act, and conclude that it should be approved.
Accordingly, the settlement is APPROVED and Respondent is ORDERED TO PAY the sum of $5000 within 30 days of the date of this order.
James A. Broderick
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