Search

In the article, the author discusses various aspects of contesting a citation. Topics discussed include help of impacts of penalties on operation of a company to determine whether to contest the penalty citation, carefulness in decision making for contesting a citation of repeated violation of a standard, and expectation of the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for a cost of an abatement.

In the article, the author comments on the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MHSA) aggressive enforcement which is being questioned by decisions of administrative law judges. The author cites as example MHSA's continued issuance of citations even as administrative judges had already ruled that equipment defects found on pre-operational inspection should not be subject of citations. The article also discusses potential problems which may arise with MSHA's aggressive enforcement.

In the article, the author reports on the moves by mine operators to contest citations imposed by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) as of April 2011. She cites as example the case of Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., in which Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Richard Manning vacated six of the 12 citations imposed by the MSHA. She also presents the cases of an elevated walkways standard and spills of hydraulic fluid.

This article deals with the prepenalty conference proceedings reinstated by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to handle disputed citations and orders. The pilot program will only be used in three MSHA areas, namely the coal bituminous districts of Kentucky and Pennsylvania and in the Southeast. According to MSHA assistant secretary Joe Main, the resumption of the program was one of his solutions for reducing the contested citation caseload.

The article criticizes Iowa-based sand and gravel operator Jeppesen Gravel's defiance of U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA) orders and citations. Topics covered include MSHA Administrative Law Judge Priscilla's imposition of 30,000 dollar penalties on the company, details of the company's violations and the opinion that Jeppesen's action is damaging to the aggregates industry.

The article aims to clarify the process for mine operators and contractors who believe they have received false citations or orders. It notes that the best use of the Closeout Conference is to get modifications made to abatement deadlines or requirements, if the operator thinks they are irrational. It cites that the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) released Procedure Instruction Letter number I08-III-1, which imposed new restrictions on the informal conferences and limited them to those citations and orders involving high negligence.

The article reports on the upholding by Administrative Law Judge Manning of a citation by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration against Rinker Materials Western, Inc. The company's Wyoming limestone quarry received a citation based on an alleged violation of securing travel during training of new workers. William E. Reffalt, the company superintendent that was fined, has asked an employee to ride in a front-end loader to task train a new worker even though the equipment was designed without a second seat for the trainer.

The author comments on a split decision by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to alter the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) citation authority with regard to the contractor/subcontractor policy. In a lawsuit involving Summit Contractors, it argued that agency's Field Inspection Reference Manual multi-employer citation policy was inconsistent with the OSHA standard. Other issue concerning multi-employer worksite citation policy is noted.

The article reports on the decision of U.S. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael Zielinski to dismiss several guarding citations involving the company LTM-Knife River Materials. Zielinski supported the company's contention that the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) failed to provide adequate notice of guarding requirements at its mobile crusher near Coos Bay, Oregon. The company was cited by an MSHA inspector for five violations of the guarding standard §56.14107. The claims by MSHA in each citation are detailed.

The article reports on the 15,000 dollar penalty that was imposed by the U.S. Mine Health and Safety Administration (MHSA) to Hoover Inc. due to loose material in an overhanging highwall in its facility. It cites the move by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Margaret A. Miller to increase the fine in one citation. Hoover is the owner of the Lebanon Quarry & Mill in Tennessee.

The author discusses the Notices of Contest (NOC) process in the mining industry. Many mine operators are planning to file more NOC when new heightened penalty systems will be enforced by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in 2007. She said that the purpose of an NOC is to adjudicate the validity of a citation or order without waiting for the proposed civil penalty of MSHA. Commission Rules 20 and 22 permit an affected party to file an NOC under certain circumstances.

Focuses on mine equipment guarding citations in the U.S. Clarification given by Administrative Law Judge Feldman on mine equipment guarding; Views of mine operators on guarding citations; Involvement of a Wyoming-based rock-crushing operation on the ruling.