Legal Document

423 U.S. 403 96 Supreme Court Reporter 816 46 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 591 Thomas S. KLEPPE, Secretary of the Interior, Petitioner,v.DELTA MINING, INC., et al. Number 74-521. Argued Oct. 6, 1975. Decided Jan. 26, 1976. Syllabus Section 109(a)(1) Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 1969 requires in determining amount civil penalty against a coal mine operator for violations Act, to consider history previous violations, appropriateness size business, whether was negligent, effect on his ability continue gravity violation, operator's good faith attempting comply after notification violation. 109(a)(3) that be assessed only "has been given an opportunity public hearing has determined, by decision incorporating findings fact therein, violation did occur, which is warranted." Respondent operators protested penalties but not request formal adjudication, they refused pay assessments, brought suits them District seeking enforcement assessments. The entered judgments favor respondents ground assessments were supported adequate fact, upheld Appeals. Held : does compel support each assessment order with express concerning penalty, absent administrative hearing. National Independent Operators' Assn. versus Kleppe, 388, 809, 580. Pp. 388. (a) A protest assessment, as opposed hearing, necessarily trigger review, subject de novo review district court or held. Pacific KF135 P2 407-408. (b) It significant proposed orders contained merely pro forma recitations six factors specified § had considered, Secretary's final mention such set forth finding occur. Although are generally required judicial determination based substantial-evidence test, here can contest without refusing it, thus invoking right trial court; moreover, when informed details 105's procedures come into play appellate available. 408-409. 3 Cir., 495 Reporter, 2nd 38, reversed remanded. John L. Kilcullen, Washington, D. C., Operator's others. Fred Blackwell, Delta Mining, Inc., Atlantic Raymond Randolph, Jr., Interior Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case consolidated it argument 73-2066, 580 (1974), decided today, resolve apparent conflict between two Circuits. 2 In 1971 January 1972 inspectors from Bureau Mines inspected mines owned respectively G. M. W. Co., partnership Edward Mears others known Y. company detected number 1969, 83 Statutes-at-Large 742, 30 Code KF62 801 seq. regulations served notices infractions.1 Each notice stated abated date. returned date furnished abated. local office sent copies abatement Bureau's central office. There officer reviewed operators. list dates their occurrence, violated, amounts penalties. issued April 11, 1972. referred ranging $30 $90 total $375. December 1971, May 1972, occurring 1971. Ten $25 $100, totaling $525. also received imminent-danger withdrawal November 24, identified fire hazard loose excess three feet deep fine $5,000. For fines 16 $100 17th at $200 $1,000. failure abate respirable-dust-concentration standard 4 argued, among other things, newly opened, small would affect its stay business. wet therefore hazard. Without explanation how, if all, information letters reissued orders. One W.'s reduced $50. again 15 working days receipt "to accept amended order, whereupon shall become Secretary, adjudication hearing." None requested adjudication. 5 filed complaints October Attached preprinted forms reciting found occurred. These dated several months answered, denying liability. 6 While cases awaiting trial, Columbia enjoined utilizing enforcing Regulations pt. 100 (1972), concluding 819(a)(3), prepare all determinations, requested. Morton, D.C., 357 F.Supp. 509 (1973). 7 On basis moved summary judgment, contending unenforceable since there no "decision . fact." Western Pennsylvania, relying decision, sought enforced meet requirements because fact. judgment respondent cases. 8 pending appeal, Appeals Circuit decisions relied. 161 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 494 987 (1974). Third Circuit, however, declined follow held compels regard requests 38 have today affirmed Independent, holding governs case. Two remaining issues raised require discussion. 9 first distinguished "operators' way suggests went undisputed. instance, lodged protests ." F.2d, 44. This overlooks while does. Here party whom deliberately forgone full, public, made. Here, too, 10 next issue "contained 'information' than criteria (of Act) considered." (Emphasis original.) Ibid. concerned "preprinted recited, some instances, out statute considered" "merely 'did, occur.' " Id., 40.2 then "each must accompanied both magnitude penalty." 11 noted general proposition "review rendered practically impossible, least vastly more difficult, where agency's findings." 42. agree test. wishes done court, jury desired. When noticed nature location violation; 105 815, provision request, 12 light our 580, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent herewith. 13 Reversed 14 STEVENS took part consideration these record below. Since before validity regulations, properly complied with, purposes we will assume served. note, do contend ample charged inspectors. concern Comptroller General's report 'unable determine adequacy 109(a)(1)) (400) sample cases.' 43. However, method assessing changed largely meets objection. now force contain formulas used officers considering 109(a) (1) criteria. 100.3 (1975). represented formula retained. 70 n. 12, 987, 989 levied. Use current preferable ad hoc But available so promulgate best instance render under prior unenforceable. explication examiner might aid judge who called upon places squarely task evaluating penalty. argued court. undoubtedly correct has, better able challenge issue, new mandated statute.

Classification Label: 8