Charles E. Carpenter, Employed by Island Creek Coal Company (ALJ decision, March 10, 1992)

Plain-English summary

Charles E. Carpenter, employed by Island Creek Coal Company, was the respondent in a Mine Act civil penalty proceeding involving the Dobbin Mine. The Secretary of Labor had withdrawn the charges under Order No. 3111274 and sought to resolve the remaining charges under Order No. 3111276 through a settlement. Judge Gary Melick found the settlement appropriate under the Mine Act's penalty criteria. He approved the settlement, dismissed the case, and ordered Carpenter to pay a $350 penalty in monthly $50 installments beginning April 1, 1992.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, the case was dismissed, and a $350 penalty was ordered in installments.
• Key point: The judge approved reducing the proposed $1,200 penalty to $350 after reviewing the parties' representations and supporting documentation under the Mine Act's penalty criteria.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. CHARLES CARPENTER
DDATE:
19920310
TTEXT:

Page 2

~472

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 91-1801 Petitioner : A.C. No. 46-05480-03815 A
v. :
: Dobbin Mine
CHARLES E. CARPENTER,
:
Employed by
:
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: Edward H. Fitch, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia, for the Petitioner;
Paul J. Harris, Esq,. Wallace, Ross & Harris, Elkins, West Virginia, for the Respondent.

Before: Judge Melick

This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of civil penalty under Section 110(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act). The petition had previously been modified by the Secretary's withdrawal of charges against Mr. Carpenter under Order No. 3111274. At hearings on the remaining charges under Order No. 3111276, the Secretary filed a motion to approve a settlement agreement and to dismiss the case. A reduction in penalty from $1,200 to $350 was proposed. I have considered the representations and documentation submitted in this case, and I conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the relevant 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 $350. Payment shall be made in monthly installments of $50 commencing April 1, 1992.

Gary Melick
Administrative Law Judge