Secretary of Labor v. ASGCO Manufacturing, Inc.
Secretary of Labor v. ASGCO Manufacturing, Inc. (FMSHRC PENN 2024-0007): Paid penalty triggered show-cause order
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2024, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
ASGCO asked the Commission to reopen a final assessment involving one citation. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but reported that MSHA had received full payment of the penalty after the motion was filed. Because payment appeared to eliminate the dispute, the Commission did not decide the reopening request. Instead, it ordered ASGCO to explain within 30 days whether it still wished to contest the penalty and why the penalty had been paid.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: ASGCO was ordered to show cause why the reopening case should not be dismissed.
- Key point: An operator that pays the penalty it seeks to reopen must explain whether a live dispute remains.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710
SECRETARY
OF LABOR,
MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)
v.
ASGCO
MANUFACTURING INC.
|
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
|
Docket
No. PENN 2024-0007
A.C.
No. 36-10240-583649
|
BEFORE: Jordan,
Chair; Baker, and Marvit, Commissioners
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On October 31, 2023, the Commission received
from ASGCO Manufacturing Inc. (“ASGCO”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty
assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section
105(a) of the Mine Act,
30
U.S.C. § 815(a).
The Secretary of Labor does not oppose the
motion to reopen, but notes that MSHA received full payment of the single
citation at issue on November 10, 2023. The Secretary asserts that, because the
operator has now paid the penalty it wished to reopen, there is no longer any
issue for the Commission to decide.
Since
it appears the penalty at issue in this motion to reopen has already been paid,
ASGCO is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within 30 days of the date of this
order why this case should not be dismissed. Any response should explain
whether ASGCO still wishes to contest the penalty, and if so, why the penalty
has since been paid.
/s/ Mary Lu Jordan
Mary
Lu Jordan, Chair
/s/ Timothy J. Baker
Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner
/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit
Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner
Distribution:
Andrew
Veeramootoo
Safety
Manager
ASGCO
Manufacturing, Inc.
730
Bangor Rd.
Nazareth,
PA 18064
April
Nelson, Esq.
Associate
Solicitor
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
Division
of Mine Safety and Health
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202
Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.
Counsel
for Appellate Litigation
Office
of the Solicitor
U.S.
Department of Labor
Division
of Mine Safety and Health
201
12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington,
VA 22202
Melanie
Garris
USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO
201 12th Street South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202
Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin
Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N
Washington, DC 20004-1710
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read Commission precedent from 2024. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.