Opinion ID: 532510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Congressional Concerns

Text: 22 Congress' overriding concern in passing the Mine Act was to promote miners' health and safety in the wake of several mine disasters. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a) (mine industry's first priority ... must be the health and safety of ... the miner). To remedy unsafe mines, Congress maintained and upgraded the civil penalty scheme of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (Coal Act) in order to induce those officials responsible for the operation of a mine to comply with the Act and its standards. S.Rep. No. 181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 41 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, pp. 3401, 3441, 1977 Legislative History at 629. Indeed, the sponsor of the 1977 Mine Act singled out the civil penalty as the mechanism for encouraging operator compliance with safety and health standards. 123 Cong.Rec. 4388 (1977), 1977 Legislative History at 85. The Senate Committee on Human Resources found that civil penalty assessments are generally too low, S.Rep. No. 181, at 41, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, at 3441, 1977 Legislative History at 629, to provide an effective inducement for mine operators to comply with the Coal Act and its standards. The Supreme Court as well has recognized that [t]he importance of [the civil penalty provision] in the enforcement of the [Coal] Act cannot be overstated because monetary penalties provide a deterrence that necessarily infrequent inspections cannot generate. National Independent Coal Operators' Ass'n v. Kleppe, 423 U.S. 388, 401, 96 S.Ct. 809, 816, 46 L.Ed.2d 580 (1976). Thus, Congress envisioned penalties that would be of an amount which is sufficient to make it more economical for an operator to comply with the Act's requirements than it is to pay the penalties assessed and continue to operate while not in compliance. S.Rep. No. 181, at 41, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, at 3441, 1977 Legislative History at 629; see also 123 Cong.Rec. 19,931 (1977), 1977 Legislative History at 921. 23 Congress was particularly concerned about curbing repeat offenders among mine operators. Reporting on the bill that became the Mine Act, the Senate Committee on Human Resources stated: 24 In evaluating the history of the operator's violations in assessing penalties, it is the intent of the Committee that repeated violations of the same standard, particularly within a matter of a few inspections, should result in the substantial increase in the amount of the penalty to be assessed. Seven or eight violations of the same standard within a period of only a few months should result, under the statutory criteria, in an assessment of a penalty several times greater than the penalty assessed for the first such violation. 25 S.Rep. No. 181, at 43, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, at 3443, 1977 Legislative History at 631; see also 123 Cong.Rec. 19,931 (1977), 1977 Legislative History at 922 (greater stress is put on the repetitive nature of the violation); 123 Cong.Rec. 20,027 (1977), 1977 Legislative History at 1074-75. 6 26 From this history, we conclude that Congress was intent on assuring that the civil penalties provide an effective deterrent against all offenders, and particularly against offenders with records of past violations. Thus, despite the Secretary's unchallenged broad discretion in devising an effective penalty scheme, the civil penalty regulations must not run contrary to that intent. 27