FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEST 2012-473-M Decided November 21, 2012 Procedural Judge Robert J. Lesnick

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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2012
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by a FMSHRC Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Commission 40 days after issuance because the Commission did not direct review (30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)). It binds the parties but is not binding on the Commission in other cases. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

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.