Source: https://fmshrc.gov/decisions/alj/ALJo_1092018-SE%202017-236-M.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:30:57+00:00

Document:
This case is before me upon the Petition for the Assessment of Civil Penalty filed by the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) pursuant to section 105 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”), 30 U.S.C. § 815. It is hereby ORDERED that Conference and Litigation Representative (“CLR”) Brandon E. Russell be accepted to represent the Secretary in accordance with the Notice of Limited Appearance he filed with the penalty petition. Cyprus Emerald Res. Corp., 16 FMSHRC 2359 (Nov. 1994).
On November 1, 2017, Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick notified the parties that Docket No. SE 2017-236-M had been designated for Simplified Proceedings and was assigned to me. On November 14, 2017, I discontinued Simplified Proceedings and issued my Prehearing Order requiring the parties either to settle this matter or position it for hearing by April 3, 2018.
The Commission has held that modification of a citation is analogous to the amendment of pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which states that leave for amendment “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Wyoming Fuel Co., 14 FMSHRC 1282, 1290 (Aug. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Accordingly, amendments are to be liberally granted unless one of the following factors justifying denial is present: (a) undue delay; (b) bad faith by moving party; (c) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (d) undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (e) futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see Wyoming Fuel Co., 14 FMSHRC at 1290 (citing Cyprus Empire Corp., 12 FMSHRC 911 (May 1990); 3 J. Moore & R. Freer, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08, 15–47 to 49 (2d ed. 1991)).
An amendment is futile if it could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 268–69 (7th Cir. 1985)). The Commission’s Procedural Rules do not provide formal guidance on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. However, Commission Judges have treated such filings as motions for summary decision. See, e.g., Kerlock v. Asarco, LLC, 36 FMSHRC 2404, 2405 (Aug. 2014) (ALJ); Sec’y of Labor on behalf of Chaparro v. Comunidad Argricola Bianci, Inc., 32 FMSHRC 1517 (Oct. 2010) (ALJ); Sec’y on behalf of Brewer v. Monongalia Cnty. Coal Co., 38 FMSHRC 1876 (July 2016) (ALJ). Commission Procedural Rule 67(b) provides that a motion for summary decision shall be granted only if “the entire record, including the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, shows: (1) [t]hat there is no genuine issue of material fact; and (2) [t]hat the moving party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.” 20 C.F.R. § 2700.67(b).
A five (5) gallon safety can was observed was sitting in rear of the International service truck without labeling containing the appropriate information on it. The 1/3 full contained had what appeared to be oil based substance (Gasoline Fuel) in it. The purpose of the label is to reduce the possibility of injury or illness by ensuring that each miner is provided correct information about the hazardous properties of the contents and appropriate protective measures to be taken. Should a miner allow gasoline vapors to contact any ignition source, it would result a flash fire and potential burns.
Despite Respondent’s arguments, there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether the “five (5) gallon safety can” that the Secretary identified in Citation No. 8792386 was a “temporary, portable container” and thus covered by the exception found in section 47.44. As such, Respondent has not established that the proposed amendments would not survive a motion for summary decision at this juncture and are thus futile.
Respondent has not offered any arguments that the Secretary’s proposed amendments would unduly delay the hearing, are motivated by bad faith, fail to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, or would unduly prejudice Respondent. I therefore see no reason to disallow the Secretary’s proposed amendments.
Accordingly, the Secretary’s Motion to Amend Pleading is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the pleadings in Citation No. 8792386 are AMENDED in accordance with the Secretary’s motion, as indicated in the motion and in my discussion supra Part III.

References: § 815
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2700