Buffalo Crushed Stone (ALJ decision, November 8, 1994)

Buffalo Crushed Stone (FMSHRC YORK 92-117-M, YORK 92-128-M): Penalties reassessed after S&S findings

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
YORK 92-117-M, YORK 92-128-M
Decided
November 8, 1994
Presiding judge
Outcome
Modified
Precedential status
Checked against source
2026-08-13

What's the rule today?

This ALJ decision was superseded by the Commission's decision in the same case. Ezel starts from the controlling decision and answers your situation under current law, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1994
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
ALJ decision, later reviewed by the Commission
This decision was issued by an FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge, but it was not the final word in the case: the Commission directed review, and the Commission's decision is the one citable as precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Buffalo Crushed Stone faced five similar violations involving berms under 30 C.F.R. § 56.9301. After the Commission determined that the violations were significant and substantial, it sent the cases back for penalty reassessment. Judge Avram Weisberger found that each violation warranted a $136 penalty and ordered a total civil penalty of $430, reflecting the $86 increase over the original $50 penalty for each of the five citations. The order addressed the penalties after Commission review.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.9301
  • Outcome: The penalties were reassessed after the violations were characterized as significant and substantial, with a total penalty of $430 ordered.
  • Key point: A Commission change to the S&S characterization can require the judge to reassess the civil penalties on remand.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)


Page 2

~2290

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. YORK 92-117-M Petitioner : A. C. No. 30-00012-05516
v. :
: Docket No. YORK 92-128-M
BUFFALO CRUSHED STONE,
: A. C. No. 30-00012-05517
Respondent :

DECISION ON REMAND

Before: Judge Weisberger

On October 31, 1994, the Commission issued a decision in these cases, 16 FMSHRC ÄÄÄÄÄÄ, which reversed my determination that five similar violations of 30 C.F.R. 56.9301 were not significant and substantial. The decision contains the following directive "we remand for reassessment of civil penalties in light of our determination."

Considering the Commission's conclusion that the cited violations were significant and substantial, I find that these violations were of a high degree of gravity. I find that a penalty of $136 is appropriate for each of these violations. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

  1. Buffalo Crushed Stone, 15 FMSHRC 1641 (August 1993).

Page 3

~2291
ORDER

It is ORDERED that Respondent, within 30 days of this decision, shall pay a civil penalty of $430.

Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

James A. Magenheimer, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 201 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 (Certified Mail)

Susan E. Long, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203 (Certified Mail)

Mr. Salvatore Castro, Safety Director, Buffalo Crushed Stone, 2544 Clinton Street, P.O. Box 710, Buffalo, NY 14224 (Certified Mail)

/efw
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

  1. The initial decision I issued on August 11, 1993, 15 FMSHRC,
    1641, supra ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $820, which included a $50 penalty for each of the five citations which are the subject of this remanded decision. Hence, Respondent is presently ordered to pay a civil penalty of $86 for each of these citation, i.e., the difference between the original penalty of
    $50, and the present finding of a penalty of $136.

What controls your case today?

The Commission reviewed this case, and its decision is the one that controls. Ezel starts there and answers your situation under current law, 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