Secretary of Labor v. Hanson Aggregates New York, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Hanson Aggregates completed annual refresher training at its crushed-limestone plant but used MSHA Form 5000-23 without listing the instructors or the duration of training. Judge Alan G. Paez found the recordkeeping rule ambiguous because the form itself did not request that information, but held that MSHA's broader interpretation was reasonable and supported the rule's training-oversight purpose. He also found that published MSHA guidance gave a reasonably prudent operator fair notice that the additional information was required. The citation was affirmed, although the judge criticized the form's confusing design and found Hanson's negligence very low because it had relied on the official form and quickly corrected the records. He assessed a $50 penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 46.9(b)
• Outcome: The training-record citation was affirmed, and Hanson was ordered to pay a $50 penalty.
• Key point: Operators using MSHA Form 5000-23 for Part 46 training must add every item required by section 46.9(b), even when the form provides no labeled space for it.

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

�����������������������������������������������������������������������

August 6, 2014

SECRETARY OF LABOR

��MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH�����������

��ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

����������������������� �� Petitioner,

����������������������� v.

HANSON AGGREGATES NEW YORK, INC.,

����������������������� �� Respondent.

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. YORK 2013-66-M

A.C. No. 30-01283-310585

����������������������� ����������������������� �����������

Mine: St. Johnsville Plant

�����������

DECISION ON
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DECISION

Appearances:�� Emily
O. Roberts, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioner;

�����������

����������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� David
P. Kurz, Hanson Aggregates New York, Inc., Jamesville, New York, for Respondent.

����������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

� Before:��������� Judge
Paez

����������� This case is before
me upon the Petition for the Assessment of Civil Penalty filed by the Secretary
of Labor (�Secretary�) under section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (�the Mine Act� or �the Act�), 30 U.S.C. � 815(d). An
authorized representative of the Secretary, on behalf of the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (�MSHA�), issued Citation No. 8708748 to Hanson
Aggregates New York, Inc. (�Hanson� or �Respondent�) for a violation of 30
C.F.R. � 46.9(b) because Hanson did not list the names of the training
instructors or the duration of the training on MSHA Form 5000-23. Hanson, which
is pro se, timely contested the citation and the case was assigned to me
for disposition. The parties have jointly stipulated to the facts and filed
cross-motions for summary decision.

�����������

I.�
�STATEMENT OF THE CASE

����������� Rather than hold a
hearing, representatives for the Secretary and Hanson agreed that the facts in
this matter were not in dispute and the case could be disposed through summary
decision. The parties jointly filed Stipulated Facts, then each filed
cross-motions for summary decision. In addition, the Secretary filed a reply to
Respondent�s motion.[1]

����������� The Secretary asserts
the following: (1) that 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b) requires operators using MSHA Form
5000-23 to include the information listed in section 46.9(b)(1)
through (b)(5); and (2) that the plain language of the regulation and other
explanatory materials provided fair notice of these requirements to Hanson. (Sec�y
Mem. at 3�8; Sec�y Reply at 1�2.) Hanson contends that 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(a)
limits the application of section 46.9(b) to forms other than MSHA Form
5000-23. (Resp�t Mot. at 1�2.) Hanson also disputes the reasonableness of the
Secretary�s interpretation because MSHA Form 5000-23 does not provide spaces
for the information required by section 46.9(b). (Id. at 2.) Further,
Hanson claims it did not receive fair notice because MSHA inspectors did not
bring the regulation to its attention prior to issuing Citation No. 8708748. (Id.)
Finally, Respondent argues that MSHA Form 5000-23 does not provide fair notice
because it does not explain that the information listed in section 46.9(b) is
required. (Id.)

������������������������������������������������������������������� II.�
�ISSUES

����������� The issues before me
are as follows: (1) whether 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b) requires operators to provide
the information listed in paragraph (b) when using MSHA Form 5000-23; (2)
whether Hanson had fair notice of the Secretary�s interpretation of section
46.9(b); and, (3) if a violation is found, whether the proposed penalty is
appropriate. For the reasons that follow, the Secretary�s motion for summary
decision is GRANTED and Hanson�s motion for summary decision is DENIED.

����������������������������������������������� III.�
�FACTUAL BACKGROUND

����������� As set forth in the
Stipulated Facts, the parties have stipulated to the following preliminary
facts:

(1)������� On
November 27, 2012, Respondent (hereinafter �Hanson�) was the operator of [the]
St[.] Johnsville Plant, a crushed/broken limestone surface mine (hereinafter
�[the] Plant�), in Montgomery County, New York, Mine ID No. 3001283;

(2)������� The
Plant is a �mine� as that term is defined in Section 3(h) of the Mine Act, 30
U.S.C. � 802(h);

(3)������� On
November 27, 2012, products of the Plant entered commerce, or the operations or
products thereof affected commerce, within the meaning and scope of Section 4
of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. � 803;

(4)������� Approximately
9,007 hours were worked at the Plant in the year [in] which the contested
citation was issued;

(5)������� A
copy of the citation at issue in this proceeding was served on Hanson by an
authorized representative of the Secretary;

(6)������� Hanson
timely contested the citation;

(7)������� Hanson
is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission and the presiding Administrative Law Judge has the authority to hear
this case and issue a decision regarding this case; and

(8)������� The
proposed penalty will not affect Respondent�s ability to remain in business.

The parties further stipulate to
the following facts regarding Citation [No.] 8708748:

(1)������� In
2012, Hanson completed the annual refresher training required by 30 C.F.R. �
46.8;

(2)������� Hanson
used MSHA form 5000-23 to certify that the training had been completed. A copy
with two examples of form 5000-23 as Hanson completed them for the 2012
training is attached as Exhibit 1;

(3)������� Hanson
did not record on MSHA form 5000-23 a list of competent instructor(s) who
conducted [the] training or the duration of the training;

(4)������� MSHA
form 5000-23 does not indicate a space in which to write the information
described in (3);

(5)������� Hanson
did not complete a supplement to MSHA form 5000-23 providing the information
described in (3);

(6)������� MSHA
Inspector Kevin Forgette issued Citation [No.] 8708748 to Hanson on November
27, 2012 under 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b) because Hanson did not include the
information described in (3) in its certification of annual refresher training;

(7)������� To
abate the citation, Hanson entered the information described in (3) on the
previously completed MSHA forms 5000-23. A copy of the forms as they appeared
after abatement is attached as Exhibit 2.

(Stipulated Facts at 1�2.)

���������������������������������������������������� IV.�
�PRINCIPLES OF LAW

A.������� Summary
Decision

����������� Commission Rule 67
provides the standard for granting any motion for summary decision:����������������������� �����������������������������������

A motion for summary
decision shall be granted only if the entire record, including pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, shows: (1)
That there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) That the moving
party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.

29 C.F.R. � 2700.67(b).

B.
������ Principles of Regulatory Interpretation

����������� Regulatory
interpretation is a two-step process. Walker Stone Co. v. Sec�y of Labor,
156 F.3d 1076, 1080 (10th Cir. 1998). First, the Commission determines whether
a regulation is ambiguous. Id. A regulation is ambiguous when its
meaning is open to �plausible and divergent interpretations.� Daanen &
Janssen, 20 FMSHRC 189, 192 (Mar. 1998). Unambiguous regulatory provisions
�must be enforced as they are written unless the regulator clearly intended the
words to have a different meaning or unless such a meaning would lead to absurd
results.� Jim Walter Res., Inc., 28 FMSHRC 579, 587 (Aug. 2006).
Second, if the regulation is ambiguous, the Commission �determine[s]
whether the Secretary�s interpretation of [a] regulation is reasonable and
whether the operator was given fair notice of its requirements.� Consolidation
Coal Co., 14 FMSHRC 956, 969 (June 1992). The Secretary�s interpretation of
its own regulation is controlling unless �plainly erroneous or inconsistent
with the regulation.� Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997).

C.
������ Fair Notice

����������� An operator has
received fair notice when �a reasonably prudent person familiar with the mining
industry and the protective purposes of the standard would have recognized the
specific prohibition or requirement of the standard.� Ideal Cement Co.,
12 FMSHRC 2409, 2416 (Nov. 1990). Published notices informing the regulated
community of the Secretary�s interpretation are are a factor in determining
fair notice. See Wolf Run Mining Co., 32 FMSHRC 1669, 1682 (Dec. 2010).

�����������������������������������������������������������

�������������������� V.� �DISCUSSION,
ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

�����������

A.������� Summary
Decision is Appropriate

����������� The parties have
jointly stipulated to the facts but disagree over the application of the
regulation to those facts. Based on the entire record, I determine that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Therefore, I conclude that the
issues before me are appropriate for summary decision pursuant to Commission
Procedural Rule 67(b), 29 C.F.R. � 2700.67(b).

B.
������ Interpretation of 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b)

����������� MSHA
cited Hanson for violating section 46.9(b), which is a recordkeeping regulation
for purposes of miner training oversight. Section 46.9(b) states that �[t]he
form must include . . . the duration of training [and] the name of the
competent person who provided the training. . . .� 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b). Hanson
stipulated that it did not include the duration of training and the name of the
competent person who provided the training when filling out MSHA Form 5000-23. (Stipulated
Facts at 2.) Thus, the issue here is whether the �form� mentioned in section
46.9(b) includes MSHA Form 5000-23. For the reasons below, I determine that the
regulation is ambiguous, but the Secretary�s interpretation of the regulation
is reasonable and entitled to deference. Consequently, I conclude that section
46.9(b) requires operators using MSHA Form 5000-23 to provide the information
listed in section 46.9(b)(1) through (b)(5), even though MSHA Form 5000-23 does
not request or provide space for that information.

1. ������� The regulation is ambiguous.

����������� A regulation is ambiguous when it is open to �plausible and divergent interpretations.� Daanen
& Janssen, 20 FMSHRC at 192. The Secretary asserts that the term �form� clearly applies
to MSHA Form 5000-23. (Sec�y Mem. at 3.) However, section 46.9(b) does not define �form� or
explicitly include MSHA Form 5000-23. 30 C.F.R.
� 46.9(b). Instead, paragraph (a) of section 46.9 discusses two types of
�form[s]� that section 46.9(b) may include. See generally Morton Int�l, Inc.,
18 FMSHRC 533, 536 (Apr. 1996) (requiring provisions to be read harmoniously). Section
46.9(a) states as follows: �You must record
and certify on MSHA Form 5000-23, or on a form that contains the information
listed in paragraph (b) of this section, that each miner has received training
required under this part.� I note that section
46.9(a) uses commas to set apart from �MSHA Form 5000-23� the phrase �or on a
form that contains the information listed in paragraph (b) of this section.� 30
C.F.R. � 46.9(a). This phrasing therefore permits an alternative interpretation
whereby the �form� mentioned in section 46.9(b) could refer solely to �a
form that contains the information
listed in paragraph (b) of this section�
mentioned in section 46.9(a), thereby excluding MSHA Form 5000-23. Accordingly,
I determine that the regulation is ambiguous. See Daanen & Janssen,
20 FMSHRC at 192.[2]

2. ������� The Secretary�s interpretation of the
   regulation is reasonable and entitled to deference.

����������� As I have determined the regulation to be
ambiguous, I must therefore determine whether the Secretary�s interpretation of
the regulation is reasonable. See Walker
Stone Co., 156 F.3d at 1080. The
Secretary interprets �form� in section 46.9(b) to include both MSHA Form
5000-23 and the alternative �form� mentioned in section 46.9(a). (Sec�y Mem. at 3.) For the following three reasons, I determine the
Secretary�s interpretation of the regulation to be reasonable. First, the Secretary�s interpretation is consistent with the
language of the regulation. Here, the Secretary interprets �form� in section
46.9(b) as a general term that encompasses every type of form mentioned in
section 46.9(a), including MSHA Form 5000-23. (Sec�y Mem. at 3.) Looking at the
text, the regulation does not provide definitions that restrict the meaning of
�form� in section 46.9(b) to a particular type of form. 30 C.F.R. � 46.9. Although
the lack of definitions does not necessarily prohibit a more restrictive
reading, the Secretary�s interpretation is a permissible reading of the
regulation.

����������� Second,
the Secretary�s interpretation is consistent with the dual purposes underlying
this recordkeeping regulation: (1) consistency of information; and (2)
flexibility. See Training and Retraining of Miners Engaged in Shell Dredging or
Employed at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or
Surface Limestone Mines: Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 53,080, 53,099, 53, 121 (Oct.
2, 2000) [hereinafter �Final Rule�]; see also Ideal Cement Co.,

12 FMSHRC at 2414 (�[A regulation] must be construed in
light of its underlying purpose.�). Indeed, MSHA intended for section 46.9(b)
to apply generally to �training records and certificates� rather than a
particular type of form. Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 53,099. Further, section
46.9(a) allows operators flexibility in choosing a form approved by the
Secretary with the intent to minimize their paperwork burden. Id. at
53,121. Accordingly, section 46.9(a) operates to approve any form containing
the �minimum information� listed in section 46.9(b). Id. Specifically,
section 46.9(a) approves the use of existing MSHA Form 5000-23, which some
operators have used to comply with the Secretary�s Part 48 rules.[3]
Id. Thus, the Secretary�s interpretation
of �form� in section 46.9(b) to include MSHA Form 5000-23 ensures that mine
operators will provide the required information regardless of the form used and
allows those operators flexibility in the form used. The Secretary�s
interpretation is therefore consistent with his purpose of maintaining
consistent records and allowing operator flexibility to reuse MSHA Form 5000-23
for 30 C.F.R. part 46 compliance.

����������� Third, the Secretary�s interpretation of the
regulation is consistent with the safety-promoting purposes of the Mine Act. See
Emery Mining Corp. v. Sec�y of Labor, 744 F.2d 1411, 1414 (10th Cir. 1984)
(requiring regulatory interpretations to be consistent with the purpose of the
underlying statute). Miner training is a critical element of an effective
safety and health plan that protects the safety of the miner. See 30
U.S.C. � 801. The duration of the training and the name of the instructor who
provided the training allow MSHA to determine if operators have provided
adequate training to their miners. Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 53,122. Requiring
operators using MSHA Form 5000-23 to provide the information listed in section
46.9(b) facilitates effective oversight of miner training, which promotes the
health and safety of miners. Conversely, a more restrictive reading of �form�
in section 46.9(b) would permit operators using MSHA Form 5000-23 to withhold
important information at the expense of the health and safety of their miners.

����������� Where the Secretary�s interpretation of a
regulation is reasonable, deference is accorded to that interpretation even if
it differs from what �a first-time reader of the regulation . . . might
conclude was the �best� interpretation of [the] language.� Gen. Elec. Co. v.
EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Because I have
determined that the Secretary�s interpretation of the regulation is reasonable
and consistent with the purposes of the regulation and the Mine Act, I must
defer to the Secretary�s interpretation.

C. ������ MSHA Provided Fair Notice of the Secretary�s
Interpretation

����������� The
Secretary does not claim that Hanson had actual notice, and I have determined
section 46.9(b) to be ambiguous. However, MSHA does not have to provide Hanson
with actual notice, inasmuch as MSHA has provided sufficient notice of the
Secretary�s interpretation by publishing multiple explanatory notices on its
Web site. See generally Mainline Rock & Ballast, 693 F.3d 1181, 1187
(10th Cir. 2012) (holding that adequate notice of regulatory requirements can
be derived from published explanatory notices). These explanatory notices
plainly indicate that operators must include the duration of training and a
list of competent instructors on MSHA Form 5000-23 if they elect to use the
form under part 46. (Sec�y Mem. at Ex. P�3, Ex. P�5.) Moreover, the Final Rule
implementing section 46.9(b) also indicates that training records and certificates must include this
information regardless of the particular type of form. 64 Fed. Reg. at 53,121. A
reasonably prudent person familiar with the
mining industry and the protective purposes of this recordkeeping regulation
would have availed themselves of the various materials that described the
specific requirements of this standard. Accordingly, I conclude that Hanson had
fair notice regarding the requirements of section 46.9(b).

�����������

����������� In
sum, I defer to the Secretary�s reasonable interpretation and determine that
section 46.9(b) requires operators using MSHA Form 5000-23 to provide a list of the competent instructor(s) who conducted
the training and the duration of the training. Hanson stipulated to omitting
this information on MSHA Form 5000-23. Furthermore, MSHA provided Hanson with
fair notice of the Secretary�s interpretation of 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b) by
publishing explanatory notices on its Web site. Consequently, I conclude that
Hanson violated 30 C.F.R. � 46.9(b), and the
Secretary is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law under Commission
Rule 67, 29 C.F.R. � 2700.67(b). Citation No. 8708748 is, therefore, AFFIRMED
as written.

��������������������������������������������������������������� VI.�
�PENALTY

����������� The
Commission assesses penalties de novo for violations of the Mine Act. Douglas
R. Rushford Trucking, 22 FMSHRC 598, 600�01 (May 2000). When assessing a
civil penalty, section 110(i) of the Mine Act requires that I consider six
criteria, including the operator�s history of previous violations, the
appropriateness of the penalty relative to the size of the operator�s business,
the operator�s negligence, the penalty�s effect on the operator�s ability to
continue business, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good
faith of the operator in attempting to achieve rapid compliance. 30 U.S.C. � 820(i).
The criteria are not required to be given equal weight. Thunder Basin Coal
Co., 19 FMSHRC 1495, 1503 (Sept. 1997).

����������� I
recognize that this case is before me because Hanson relied on common sense
rather than a lawyer. In fact, when informed of the section 46.9(b)
requirements, Hanson provided the requested information to abate the citation
in good faith. (Stipulated Facts at 2.) Perhaps Hanson would have provided the
required information earlier if it had engaged in a detailed, legal analysis of
an ambiguous regulation. Instead, Hanson trusted that MSHA Form 5000-23 would
contain all the requirements for compliance. It may be time for MSHA to
reconsider its earlier determination and provide the regulated community with a
straightforward, sensible form. Although section 46.9(a) does not mandate the
use of MSHA Form 5000-23, the form�s design predictably misleads operators into
violating the standard. Indeed, commentators predicted this misplaced trust and
suggested that MSHA Form 5000-23 be revised because it was �confusing.� Final
Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 53,121. Despite MSHA�s determination that MSHA Form
5000-23 was not �so confusing as to be unusable,� id., the Secretary may
be well-advised to adopt loftier goals than providing a �[not] unusable� form. Given
the circumstances and confusing design of the form, I find Hanson�s negligence
to be on the very low end of the spectrum.

����������� Moreover,
I find that the gravity of the violation is minimal, as I agree that Hanson�s
failure to provide complete training records in this case created no likelihood
of injury and was expected to result in no lost workdays because the required
training had been provided. (Sec�y Mem. at Ex. P�1; Stipulated Facts at 2.) Looking
at MSHA�s public, online retrieval database, I note Hanson�s insignificant
history of prior violations at the St. Johnsville Plant, which is limited to
eight citations and does not include any prior citations regarding section
46.9(b). See Mine Safety & Health Admin., Mine Data Retrieval
System, http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm (last visited August 5, 2014). I
have also considered Hanson�s size and the penalty�s lack of effect on Hanson�s
ability to continue business. (Stipulated Facts at 1�2.) In light of the
factors above, especially as they relate to Hanson�s degree of negligence, I
conclude that a penalty of $50.00 is appropriate for Citation No. 8708748.

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� VII.�
�ORDER

����������� In
light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Secretary�s motion for
summary decision is GRANTED and Hanson�s motion for summary decision is DENIED.
Hanson Aggregates New York, Inc. is hereby ORDERED to PAY a
penalty of $50.00 within 40 days of this decision.[4]������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������� /s/
Alan G. Paez

����������������������������������������������������������������������� Alan
G. Paez

����������������������������������������������������������������������� Administrative
Law Judge

�����������

Distribution:

�����������������������

Emily
O. Roberts, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 211
Seventh Avenue North, Suite 420, Nashville, TN 37219

David
P. Kurz, Hanson Aggregates New York Inc., P.O. Box 513, Jamesville, NY 13078

/mlb����������������

[1]
For the purposes of this Decision, I refer to the Secretary�s Memorandum in
Support of the Secretary of Labor�s Motion for Summary Decision as �Sec�y
Mem.�, Respondent�s Motion for Summary Decision as �Resp�t Mot.�, and the
Secretary�s reply brief as �Sec�y Reply.�

[2]
Section 46.9(b) does not specifically reference MSHA Form 5000-23, and I need not address the form�s implications because I
have determined that the text of section 46.9 itself permits alternative
readings. Nevertheless, I note that MSHA Form 5000-23 includes neither space
for operators to provide the information required by section 46.9(b) nor
instructions to do so. (See Stipulated Facts at 2, Ex. 1.) Such a design
likewise contradicts the Secretary�s claim that section 46.9(b) unambiguously
applies to MSHA Form 5000-23.

[3]
The preamble explains that operators
already used MSHA Form 5000-23 to comply with training certification
requirements under 30 C.F.R. part 48. Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. at 53,121. Accordingly,
section 46.9(a) allows operators to adapt MSHA Form 5000-23 for dual use under
30 C.F.R. part 46, rather than developing another form, �so long as the
information required by final [section] 46.9(b) is included on the form.� Id.

[4]
Payment should be sent to: U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, Payment Office, P.O.
Box 790390, St. Louis, MO 63179-0390. Please include docket and A.C. numbers.