Cowin and Company, Inc. (Commission decision, December 3, 1981)
Cowin and Company, Inc. (FMSHRC HOPE 76-210-P and related dockets): Reconsideration denied on scope of dismissal
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1981, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary asked the Commission to clarify its earlier decision involving Cowin and Company, Inc., by expressly stating that it had dismissed only two penalty petitions. The Commission had held that 30 C.F.R. § 77.1903(b) was not a mandatory safety standard. It explained that the petitions and penalties before it involved that provision, and that its decision did not affect alleged violations of other standards still before the judge. The Commission found the scope clear from context and denied reconsideration. This order does not assess a new penalty.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 77.1903(b), which the earlier Commission decision held was not a mandatory safety standard.
- Outcome: Petition for reconsideration denied; the earlier dismissal covered the petitions involving § 77.1903(b).
- Key point: The earlier dismissal did not reach alleged violations of other standards before the judge.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
M,SHA V. COWIN
DDATE:
19811203
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. December 3, 1981 SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) Docket Nos. HOPE 76-210-P HOPE 76-211-P
v. HOPE 76-212-P
HOPE 76-213-P
COWIN AND COMPANY, INC.
ORDER
The Secretary has filed a petition for reconsideration of a Commission decision issued November 6, 1981. He requests clarification of that decision through an express statement that only two petitions for assessment of penalties were dismissed. The Commission's order granting review limited the issue to whether 30 CFR $77.1903(b) is a mandatory safety standard. We held that it is not. The only petitions and penalties that were before the Commission, and hence were dismissed, involved section 77.1903(b). In context, we believe it is clear that the Commission did not review and the decision did not affect violations of other standards at issue before the judge. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration is denied.
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation 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