Maple Meadow Mining Company

Plain-English summary

Maple Meadow Mining Company agreed to settle a civil penalty case involving one section 104(d)(1) citation and one section 104(d)(1) order. The settlement changed Citation No. 3964584 to a section 104(a) citation, reduced its penalty from $600 to $200, and changed the negligence finding from high to moderate. It changed Order No. 3964585 to a section 104(d)(1) citation, reduced its penalty from $1,800 to $900, and changed the gravity assessment from highly likely to reasonably likely. Judge Roy J. Maurer approved the settlement and ordered the company to pay $1,100 within 30 days, after which the case would be dismissed.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(d), 814(d)(1), 814(a), and 820(i)
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, two enforcement matters were modified, and the total penalty was reduced to $1,100.
• Key point: The approved settlement reduced both the enforcement classifications and the penalties based on the parties' agreed changes to negligence and gravity.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

                OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                        2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
                         5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                    FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041



                      February 1, 1996

SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. WEVA 95-219
Petitioner : A. C. No. 46-03374-03837
v. :
: Maple Meadow Mine
MAPLE MEADOW MINING COMPANY, :
Respondent :

               DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: Caryl L. Casden, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
U. S. Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia,
for the Secretary;
John Bonham, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Respondent.

Before: Judge Maurer

 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).

 At the hearing, the parties proposed a settlement wherein

section 104(d)(1) Citation No. 3964584 would be modified to a
section 104(a) citation and the penalty reduced from $600 to
$200. Also with regard to the negligence factor on that citation
which was originally marked as “high,” the proposal is that it be
changed to “moderate.” With regard to section 104(d)(1) Order
No. 3964585, it would be modified to a section 104(d)(1) citation
and the proposed penalty of $1800 would be reduced to $900. Also
with regard to the gravity assessment, which was originally
marked as “highly likely,” the proposal is that it be changed to
“reasonably likely.”

 I have considered the representations and documentation

submitted in this case, and I 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 $1100 within
30 days of this decision. Upon payment in full, this case IS
DISMISSED.

                             Roy J. Maurer
                             Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Caryl L. Casden, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department
of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 516, Arlington, VA 22203

John Bonham, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, P. O. Box 553, Charleston, WV
25322

dcp

                            2