Source: https://safety-health.jacksonkelly.com/2013/08/review-commission-answers-the-question-of-how-low-an-administrative-law-judge-can-go-on-a-104d-actio.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-13 18:52:36
Document Index: 610568371

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 110', '§ 110', '§ 110', '§ 110', '§ 104', '§ 110', 'art 50', '§ 104']

Occupational Safety and Health News Alert: REVIEW COMMISSION ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF HOW LOW AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CAN GO ON A § 104(d) ACTION
« THE LATEST ON THE STATE OF S&S AND ITS IMPLICATIONS | Main | MSHA INFORMS STAKEHOLDERS OF UPCOMING CHANGES AND CURRENT ISSUES »
REVIEW COMMISSION ANSWERS THE QUESTION OF HOW LOW AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CAN GO ON A § 104(d) ACTION
When MSHA issued a § 104(d)(1) citation to a small sand and gravel operation operated by Stansley Mineral Resources, Inc. in Techumseh, Michigan, the operator disputed the Significant and Substantial (“S&S”) and unwarrantable failure designations. While Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) David Barbour held that the violation was S&S and the result of the operator’s unwarrantable failure, he reduced the penalty proposed by the Secretary from $2000.00 to $1000.00. In doing so, ALJ Barbour took into account the operator’s small size, violation history, and good faith in abating the violation promptly. However, the Commission overturned his decision holding that the Commission and its ALJs were bound by the minimum statutory penalties in the Mine Act.
In Stansley Mineral Resources, Inc., Docket No. LAKE 2011-693-M (May 2013), the question before the Commission was whether the Commission and its Judges were “bound by the minimum penalty assessment provisions of § 110(a)(3) and whether those provisions can be reconciled with the broad discretion granted to the Commission in § 110(i).” Section 110(i) of the Mine Act vests the Commission with the authority to assess civil monetary penalties based on the operator’s history of previous violations; the size of the business; whether the operator was negligent; whether the penalty will affect the operator’s ability to stay in business; the gravity of the violation, and whether the violation was abated in good faith.
The Commission held that, while the ALJ applied the statutory criteria correctly, he erred in reducing the penalty below the statutory minimum of $2000.00. Specifically, the Commission determined that the language requiring a minimum statutory penalty was clear, and that § 110(a)(4) of the Mine Act supported the Secretary’s argument. Section 110(a)(4) states that, “If a court . . . sustains the order, the court shall apply at least the minimum penalties required under this subsection.” Further, it stated that “a court of appeals would be required to reverse any final Commission decision imposing a penalty less than the relevant minimum amount in § 110(a)(3).” Consistent with its decision, the Commission increased the penalty to $2,000.00.
The Review Commission’s decision also may affect other types of enforcement actions. While the Commission decision addressed the issue of a § 104(d) citation, § 110 of the Mine Act also prescribes minimum penalties for other types of violations. For instance, the minimum penalty for a violation of the immediate notification rule under Part 50 is $5000.00, and the minimum penalty for a § 104(d)(2) order is $4000.00.
Posted on August 01, 2013 at 03:18 PM in ALJ and Review Commission Decisions, Coal Mines, Metal/Nonmetal Mines | Permalink