Secretary of Labor v. West Alabama Sand & Gravel, Inc.

Plain-English summary

West Alabama Sand & Gravel had stipulated that a truck driver's failure to wear fall protection was a high-negligence and unwarrantable-failure violation, leaving only the penalty amount unresolved after a Commission remand. MSHA's records showed that the operator had paid only $200 of $27,890 in assessed penalties for 59 citations and orders issued over roughly six years. Judge Jerold Feldman noted that payment delinquency is not expressly listed among the Mine Act's penalty criteria, but that Commission precedent recognizes deterrence as central to civil penalties. He ordered West Alabama to explain why its delinquent payment history should not count as an aggravating factor in setting the penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.15005
• Outcome: West Alabama was ordered to show cause why its penalty-payment delinquency should not aggravate the penalty assessment.
• Key point: The deterrent purpose of Mine Act penalties may justify examining a long record of nonpayment when setting a contested penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004

May 9, 2016

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner,

v.

WEST ALABAMA SAND & GRAVEL,      INC.,

Respondent.

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. SE 2009-870-M

A.C. No. 01-02738-194100

Mine: West Alabama Sand & Gravel

ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

Before:                        Judge
Feldman

The single citation at issue is 104(d)(1)
Citation No. 6511548, issued to West Alabama Sand & Gravel, Inc., (“West
Alabama”), alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.15005, which provides that
“[s]afety belts and lines shall be worn when persons work where there is danger
of  falling. . . .” The violation concerns the failure of a contract haul truck
driver to wear a restraining device while securing his truck’s load. The
Secretary proposes a civil penalty of $15,971.00 for the cited violation in 104(d)(1)
Citation No. 6511548. The Commission, in its remand in this matter, has vacated
the initial decision’s deletion of the unwarrantable failure designation and
directed that I reconsider the issues of negligence and unwarrantable failure
consistent with their decision. 37 FMSHRC 1884, 1891 (Sept. 2015).

Following a series of conference calls,
on December 15, 2015, West Alabama stipulated that the subject section 56.15005
violation was attributable to an unwarrantable failure. Specifically:

1.      West Alabama
stipulates to such facts as are necessary and sufficient to permit the Court to
make a designation of unwarrantable failure under 30 U.S.C.    § 814(d)(1).  

2.      West Alabama
stipulates to such facts as are necessary and sufficient to permit the Court to
make a designation of “high” negligence level.

West Alabama’s Stipulation of Material
Facts, at 1 (Dec. 15, 2015).

Thus, the only remaining issue is the
appropriate civil penalty to be assessed for 104(d)(1) Citation No. 6511548. Consequently,
on February 17, 2016, the parties were requested to specifically identify any
aggravating or mitigating factors with respect to the civil penalty criteria in
30 U.S.C. § 820(i). The parties’ responses to the February 17 Order are under
consideration.

The Secretary’s response to
the Order asserted, in part:

It is also notable that Respondent
continues to consistently violate safety standards and essentially stopped
paying assessed penalties in approximately January 2010, according to the Mine
Data Retrieval System [“MDRS”].

Sec’y
Resp., at 12 (Mar. 9, 2016).

Consistent with the above assertion, the
MDRS reflects that of the $27,890.00 civil penalties assessed for the 59
citations and orders issued to West Alabama during the period June 2010 to November
2015, West Alabama has paid $200.00 in satisfaction of two citations. The MDRS
further reflects that West Alabama is delinquent in its payment of the
$27,690.00 total civil penalty for the remaining 57 citations and orders. Thus,
with the exception of two citations, West Alabama has been delinquent in its
payment of assessed civil penalties for approximately six years.

With respect to delinquency as it
relates to the imposition of civil penalties,           in the past, the
Commission has narrowly construed the civil penalty criteria in section 110(i).
 In Sec’y o/b/o Johnson v. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 18 FMSHRC 841 (June
1996), the Commission stated: “An operator’s delinquency in payment of
penalties is not one of the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Mine
Act for consideration in the assessment of penalties.” Id. at 850.

However, in Black Beauty Coal Co.,
34 FMSHRC 1856 (Aug. 2012), the Commission departed from its narrow
interpretation of section 110(i) by emphasizing the role of deterrence as a
proper consideration in assessing civil penalties.[1]
In this regard, the Commission noted:

Clearly Congress viewed civil penalties
as a mechanism to promote operator compliance with health and safety mandates,
and it explicitly called for consideration of the protection of the “public
interest” - which includes such compliance - before a [penalty is assessed].
Consequently, it is eminently appropriate for a Judge to acknowledge the need
for deterrence in [considering the appropriate civil penalty], with the
understanding that the [ultimate civil penalty], consistent with fundamental
principles underlying the penalty provisions of the Mine Act, discourage
operators from violating health and safety regulations and laws in the future.

Id.
at
1866. In sum, the Commission stated:

Simply put, we refuse to require our
Judges to apply blinders . . . and to ignore the central and most obvious
purpose of civil penalties - to ensure operator compliance with safety measures

• when deciding whether such penalties are appropriate. Deterrence is a
  principle basic to and underlying the entire statutory scheme of imposing civil
  penalties.

Id.
at
1869.

In
the final analysis, the imposition and payment of civil penalties is the
statute’s principal means of achieving the deterrence necessary to further the
Mine Act’s goal of promoting health and safety.

ORDER

In view of the above, West Alabama IS
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before May 31, 2016, why its delinquent
payment history should not be considered an aggravating factor in determining
the appropriate civil penalty to be assessed in this matter. If the Secretary
elects to file a written response to West Alabama’s submission, such response
should be filed  on or before June 14, 2016.

/s/ Jerold
Feldman

Jerold Feldman

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:
(Regular and Certified Mail)

Sophia
E. Haynes, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Room 7T10, Atlanta, GA 30303

Clatus
Junkin, Esq., P.O. Box 688, 202 3rd Street NE, Fayette, AL 35555

Charles
E. Harrison, Esq., Pearson Harrison & Pate, LLC, P.O. Box 3119, Tuscaloosa,
AL 35403

/acp

[1] Although Black Beauty concerned the propriety
of considering deterrence in the context of approving settlements of civil
penalties, it is clear that deterrence is also an appropriate consideration in
determining civil penalties in contested cases. See Black Beauty, 34
FMSHRC at 1865-66.