Sunol Aggregates
Sunol Aggregates (FMSHRC WEST 2012-473-M): Settlement motion denied over requested operator change
Apply this to your situation
This order from 2012 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Secretary vacated two citations issued to Sunol Aggregates and asked to modify two others so they would instead be issued to Sunol's contractor, DeSilva Gates. Chief Judge Robert J. Lesnick explained that the Secretary has enforcement authority to issue citations, while Commission judges adjudicate disputes and cannot charge an operator with violations. Because approving the request would effectively require him to issue the citations to DeSilva, he denied the settlement motion. The Secretary's separate decision to vacate the other citations was not subject to review.
Decision snapshot
- Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 814(a) and 815(d)
- Outcome: The motion to approve settlement was denied because the judge lacked authority to transfer the citations to another operator.
- Key point: Commission judges adjudicate citations but cannot exercise the Secretary's enforcement power by issuing them to a different operator.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710
TELEPHONE: 202-434-9958 / FAX: 202-434-9949
November 21, 2012
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Petitioner,
v.
SUNOL AGGREGATES,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
Docket No. WEST 2012-473-M
A.C. No. 04-02098-000278138
Mine: Sunol Aggregates
ORDER ACCEPTING APPEARANCE
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT
Before: Judge Lesnick
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of the civil penalties filed under
section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 815(d).
The Secretary of Labor’s Conference and Litigation Representative (“CLR”) filed a notice
of limited appearance with the penalty petition. It is ORDERED that the CLR be accepted to
represent the Secretary. Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp., 16 FMSHRC 2359 (Nov. 1994).
The CLR has filed a motion to approve settlement. The CLR states that Citation Nos.
8611198 and 8611201 have been vacated. The Secretary’s discretion to vacate a citation or order
is not subject to review. RBK Construction, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 2099, 2101 (Oct. 1993).
The CLR also requests that Citation Nos. 8611199 and 8611200 be modified as to the
operator to which they were issued. The citations were issued to Sunol Aggregates (“Sunol”).
The CLR now wants them to be issued to Sunol’s subsidiary/contractor, DeSilva Gates (JDX)
(“DeSilva”). Specifically, the CLR requests that the citations “be modified to” DeSilva.
In its Answer to the petition, Sunol (not DeSilva) states that it “had recently acquired the
property lease at the mine site, and was demolishing the existing aggregate plant to prepare for
the construction of a new plant.” Ans. at 1. According to Sunol, it hired DeSilva “to harvest raw
material from the quarry pit and stockpile it for future production.” Id.
The Mine Act confers enforcement authority upon the Secretary. Thunder Basin Coal
Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). Section l04(a) of the Act delegates to the Secretary authority
to issue citations for violations of the Act or any mandatory health or safety standard, rule, order,
or regulation promulgated pursuant to the Act. The Commission, on the other hand, adjudicates
disputes under the Mine Act. It has no authority to inspect mines, investigate violations, or issue
citations. Mechanicsville Concrete, Inc., 18 FMSHRC 877, 879 (June 1996). In keeping with
this distinction between the respective roles of the Commission and the Secretary under the Mine
Act, the Commission has concluded that its United States Administrative Law Judges are not
authorized representatives of the Secretary and do not have authority to charge an operator with
violations of section 104 of the Mine Act. Mettiki Coal Corp., 13 FMSHRC 760, 764 (May
1991).
The CLR in essence requests that I issue Citation Nos. 8611199 and 8611200 to DeSilva,
which under the well-settled Commission law cited above I lack the authority to do.
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is DENIED.
/s/ Robert J. Lesnick
Robert J. Lesnick
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Patricia L. Borer, Conference & Litigation Representative, U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA,
991 Nut Tree Road, 2nd Floor, Vacaville, CA 95687
Jeff Workman, Safety Director, Sunol Aggregates, 11555 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, CA 94568
/tas
Patricia L. Borer
Conference & Litigation Representative
U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA
991 Nut Tree Road, 2nd Floor
Vacaville, CA 95687
Jeff Workman, Safety Director
Sunol Aggregates
11555 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2012, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.