Rock Products

JUN 2019

Rock Products is the aggregates industry's leading source for market analysis and technology solutions, delivering critical content focusing on aggregates-processing equipment; operational efficiencies; management best practices; comprehensive market

Issue link: https://rock.epubxp.com/i/1124518

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 57 of 91

56 • ROCKproducts • June 2019 www.rockproducts.com LAW Operators generally know there are deadlines to contest/ challenge MSHA enforcement actions, but the deadlines are not always obvious. One recent case, Secretary of Labor v. Sims Crane, Docket Nos. SE 2016-81 and SE 2017-97, involv- ing one citation and one imminent danger order is a good reminder that deadlines and clear communications with the judge can be more important than they seem. These cases were resolved after two hearings with an admin- istrative law judge, before and after a decision by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) on Sims Crane's Motion to Reopen the imminent danger order. The cases can be summarized as follows: Facts • Sept. 23, 2015, MSHA inspector sees a crane parked on a low-boy trailer, man exits the crane's cab and walks across the wheels and fender to exit the crane. • The man was 7 to 8 ft. off the ground on the wheel. • Inspector issued an Imminent Danger Order under § 107(a) of the Mine Act (the Order) and an S&S Citation, alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.15005, which requires in part that "safety belts and lines shall be worn when per- sons work where there is danger of falling …" (the Citation). • The Citation specifically mentioned the Order. • The Order and Citation were terminated by instructing the driver on the use of fall protection. Procedural History • Between September and December 2015, Sims Crane took no action towards the Order. • On Dec. 3, 2015, Sims received MSHA's proposed penalty for the Citation. • MSHA does not assess penalties for § 107(a) Orders. • Sims checked the box on MSHA Form 1000-179 that reads "I wish to contest and have a formal hearing on all viola- tions listed in the Proposed Assessment." • MSHA received the completed form on Dec. 23, 2015. • Sims made periodic pre-trial updates to the judge asking for the Citation and Order to be vacated. •  MSHA never objected to Sims asking for the Order to be vacated, writing in its pre-hearing report that "all aspects of the Citation and [Order] are at issue …". • Shortly before the hearing, the judge asked whether the Order had been properly contested. Know Your Rules There Are Deadlines To Contest/Challenge MSHA Enforcement Actions, But The Deadlines Are Not Always Obvious By Erik Dullea During and after the hearing, Sims argued the Order was con- tested because Sims filled out Form 1000-179, and because the Citation referenced the Order, contesting the former con- tested the latter. The judge held that the facts and circumstances did not sup- port the S&S Citation, and there was no negligence by Sims. But he also ruled that the Order had not been properly con- tested. He could not rule on its validity, because he lacked jurisdiction based on Commission Rule of Procedure 22(a): (a) Time to file. A notice of contest of a withdrawal order issued under § 107 of the Act…, shall be filed with the Commission … within 30 days of receipt of the order …. Unlike citations, which can be contested within 30 days after issuance, or within 30 days after receiving the proposed pen- alty, there is no penalty for a § 107(a) order. Section 107(a) orders must be contested within 30 days of issuance, modi- fication or termination. Sims needed to contest the Order by Oct. 23, 2015 under Rule 22. Aware of the judge's concerns about the Order, Sims filed a Motion to Reopen the Order with the Commission on Dec. 19, 2016. This was 14 months after the Rule 22 deadline to contest the Order. This period was significant to the Commission. The Commission looks for legal or factual justifications reopen an enforcement action, because the judicial system prefers that cases be decided on their merits, not procedural errors. The Commission's approach utilizes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") that are used in our federal court system. FRCP 60 states, in part, that … the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; or … Erik Dullea is a partner at Husch Blackwell. As a member of its Technology, Manufac- turing & Transportation team, he focuses on administrative/regulatory law, with an emphasis on heavily regulated industries and government contractors. He can be reached at erik.dullea@huschblackwell.com.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Rock Products - JUN 2019